So they don’t behave like this:
….the country’s 250,000 housekeepers are in a difficult position. They’re often alone on a floor, cleaning a vacant room, back to the door, the vacuum’s drone silencing all sound. A perfect setup for a horror movie…
….Housekeepers perform the most physically demanding work necessary to operate a luxury hotel. Assigned 10 to 14 rooms a day on average, they strip beds, dump sheets down laundry chutes, remake beds, scrub bathroom floors, clean tubs and toilets, empty trash, polish mirrors, clean glasses, vacuum carpets — and the work does not end there.
On top of that, they have to be sexually accosted by guests? Sadly, yes. And more often than you’d think…..
….Hotel workers walk in on threesomes, twosomes and, most commonly, onesomes, and must extricate themselves as delicately as possible because, make no mistake, the guest’s opinion of the situation holds quite a bit of weight.
It might be claimed, for instance, that the housekeeper failed to knock loudly enough, hence the hotel is at fault for this terrible embarrassment. (It is never mentioned that the guest was enjoying Internet pornography while wearing noise-canceling headphones.) So … use the bolt lock! Housekeepers are begging you. Minibar attendants are begging you. Bellmen are begging you. Your wife is begging you.
Yup. Exactly. I got nothing much to add except to say that this is one of those things where it’s just not that complicated. You got to know how to act — and you got to know that slapping down the gold card to cover incidentals doesn’t buy you access to the help in any way shape or form.
Is that really even remotely complicated?
Image: Giuseppe Maria Crespi, The Kitchenmaid, after 1712.
*And because I’m still a sucker for CSNY, here’s the referenced link.
Villago Delenda Est
There are, I’m afraid, a great many “high status” people who believe that their “high status” buys them exactly that sort of access.
For example, the vile shit George W. Bush using a Letterman staffer’s skirt to clean his glasses.
If you don’t want to be disturbed, use the fucking Do Not Disturb sign (or is that “Fucking. Do Not Disturb!”?) for goodness sake. How hard can it be?
I have heard some of these things before and I can’t, can’t, understand what the hell goes through people’s minds.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
If you’re too stupid to use the chain or deadbolt, why the fuck are you allowed to travel alone?
Maybe part of the fun is getting walked in on.
when i go to a hotel, i typically put the “do not disturb” sign on the door when i walk in and don’t take it off until i’m done with my stay. i don’t need someone to clean up after me every 24 hours and frankly it’s wasteful for them to do so. and i don’t typically want someone knocking on my door at random times (especially if i’m on vacation).
Or: “Go away. ‘Batin.’
And the whole concept of turndown service is so stupid. A waste of work and there are not many people who think getting a chocolate on their pillow makes them really special.
Ditto that! Plus bolt! Unfortunately, my boyfriend insists fresh towels every damn day so I have to deal with the intrusion.
Does anyone in the U.S. actually wait to hear or see evidence in criminal cases before pronouncing guilt anymore?
I’m wondering if the country’s Puritan beginnings are at the root of the American need to immediately judge alleged perps as guilty…just a thought.
What ever happened to Do Not Disturb tags, to be kept on the outside of a door?
Those used to be pretty effective in keeping house keeping from entering the room.
The free market will fix this. If hotel maids mind getting raped or walking in on sex scenes so much, they should just find other jobs. Eventually, hotels in which the housekeeping staff keeps getting attacked or an unwanted eyeful won’t be able to retain qualified staff.
Just heard the song last night. There was a concert on HDNet with Crosby and Nash.
Villago Delenda Est
Pardon me, but no one has assumed guilt in the DSK case. This entire thread is about generalities…and the attitudes…of certain people who behave in ways that us mere peasants find to be egregious.
Unfortunately, DSK fits nicely into those generalities. It’s why it’s so easy to jump to a conclusion on this particular case…already there are “high status” people who are engaging in character assassination of the unnamed hotel worker in this case…does the name “Ben Stein” ring a bell?
Bingo. The “high status” solution to everything…just walk away from the only employment you can get if the rape bothers you.
I always thought it was one of those safety precautions you just needed to take in case that second zipper got stuck on your full-bondage wet suit.
Tim: We are talking about people’s behavior in general.
However, it is indeed possible that the gentleman currently in Rikers is a true innocent and is being harassed by a woman who could lose her horribly difficult job in a New York minute at the whim of a client. I just wonder why she would do it. I can understand a well-planned blackmail scheme, Law and Order style, but really, reporting an assault and calling the police? What would she gain?
@Villago Delenda Est:
A quote from above:
Pardon me, but you’re full of it.
and you are an expert on this matter because?
I refer you to my post #17 above.
While you’re just, you know, thinking in general, and for no specific reason at all, about hotel maids being allegedly raped, and imagining scenarios and all, do you think there might just possibly be a reason why someone somewhere just might want to take down a powerful IMF figure at this point, with a sex scandal in America, where sex is worse than murder? Just maybe? Possibly?
@Villago Delenda Est: Sure. It’s why we can tell discriminated-against Wal*Mart employees in small towns to suck it up, advise Michigan autoworkers whose houses are underwater to “just move to another state,” and instruct rural women whose pharmacists won’t fill their prescriptions to keep driving through town after town until they find one who will. It’s all so easy when we have the right perspective.
ftfy. but i can’t really speak from experience. but you should at least try to compare the correct things.
Villago Delenda Est
Talk about your thick headed dumbass motherfuckers.
Tim, you’re it.
That’s STILL a general statement, not a specific one, about a general situation where personal power differentials are present.
All the DSK situation has done, whether he is guilty in this case or not, is spark a general discussion of the overall working conditions for hotel workers which often include situations such as walking in on guests having sex, when the “do not disturb” sign isn’t present. Like they invite it.
Not one post has pronounced judgement in the DSK case, yet you’re obfuscating with all the ferocity of Newt Gingrich claiming he was asked a “gotcha” question by well known Seymour Hersch acolyte Dancin’ Dave Gregory.
Shorter Tim, Interrupted: “I’m sorry, is this your pool I’m shitting in?”
@Tim, Interrupted: So, basically, you’re saying that you’ll never believe a guest can ever rape a hotel worker, and when someone’s accused, you should never believe her.
Villago Delenda Est
Indeed. Perspective is everything.
Which seems to be Tim’s problem. He’s one of the serfs who is more than happy to grovel for whatever scraps the master deigns to throw to him.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
Is that really even remotely complicated?
That’s exactly the point. It’s not, and yet in the minds of too many, it doesn’t even come up.
Jay in Oregon
It’d be nice if they asked at check-in if the hotel staff liked being “unintentionally” invited to view someone else’s sexytimes.
@gwangung: Forget it, Jake. It’s Special Timmeh.
Tim: And you think the NYPD didn’t think of checking the woman out? I hate to break your conspiracy but in cases of rape and attempted rape (not sex, that’s a whole other different thing), the victims are checked out as much as the alleged criminal.
And if you tell me the NYPD is also in on it, as are the women in France, well…
IANAL, and this is sadly not the first thread here where I have had to point this out, but permit me to do so again:
The presumption of innocence only applies to induviduals within the legal system. As ordinary members of society, the rest of us are free to speculate however we wish about someone’s guilt or innocence.
@Jay in Oregon: It gives a whole new meaning to a room with a view.
O/T, this view from a plane of Joplin is fairly staggering.
While I absolutely believe that in the case in question, the woman is accurately reporting a true assault, when you asked “what would she gain” by claiming something that wasn’t true the immediate answer that came into my head was:
Fame and/or fortune.
This is cynical, true, but frankly, high profile people tend to be two things:
Accusing such a person of a major crime is a good way to either become famous yourself (if that is your end goal) or to become rich if the person in question is willing to pay to make something go away.
As I said before, I think that THIS woman is telling the truth, but I don’t necessarily agree that these hotel maids would have nothing at all to gain by accusing someone falsely depending on who that someone was.
Think of the wingnut welfare circuit we often talk about here at Balloon Juice. Now imagine a hotel maid who accused a very well-known, high profile liberal politician. Think they might get face time on Fox or a book deal if they wanted one out of it?
Tim’s basic point that we shouldn’t automatically jump to a conclusion EITHER WAY is valid, though I think that more often than not these complaints are valid ones and there is a real issue with an imbalance of power leading to less frequent reporting of the incidents.
I worked as a house cleaner for Marriot for a week as a temp job right after graduating college and waiting on jobs from interviews. House cleaners don’t know who is in what room. They are given a list of rooms and dates for which the guests will be checking out. If the guest is checking out late, it’s noted on the list. This lets the cleaner know which rooms to tidy and which to thoroughly clean for the next guest. The idea that a maid would know that the penthouse is being rented out to the head of IMF and plan an elaborate trap in a bid to cripple the world’s economy is ludicrous. Yes Tim, Interrupted, I’m looking at you.
The only people the maids care/gossip about are celebrities and the head of IMF doesn’t qualify.
In closing – it was a shitty job – literally. The slobs that paid top dollar for some amazing suites and the crap left on and around the toilet, the urine-sprayed floors, vomit in sinks, on bed sheets. In retrospect, I can’t believe I stayed even a week on that job. But that was in the early 90’s, maybe humankind has gotten less piggy in that time.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
sorry but you have to be an asshole to feel any way but relieved if no one mentions it for the duration of your stay after the maid, or whomever, walks in and finds you with your pud in your hand, or to be fair, flicking the bean, to internet porn or worse, the pay per view options(vanilla) .
its only an asshole that perpetually tries to turn shit like that around. they do it with everything.
the reality is, they don’t want to see your shit, any more than you apparently want to show it to them(a lofty presumption, and i am not even venturing a guess on the people who do it on purpose)they are there because its their job, and their job sucks worse than yours, so either way you win, unless you have really really malformed genitals.
@Jazz Superluminar: There is always the possibility that I might be called as juror in the case. Now, I know I don’t live in New York and, as a result, am not a member of the pool of eligible jurors, but I should, nevertheless, avoid making any kind of preliminary judgment as to whether or not DSK did it. Oh yeah, one other neat thing about the legal system, even if DSK is found not guilty, it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. Let’s not tell Tim I.; it might upset him.
Good information, as my previous post/point is contingent upon some level of knowledge of the room owners. If that isn’t the case broadly then it certainly diminishes the validity of my theory.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
OT, but BWAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Cantor triples down on fail.
“… slapping down the gold card to cover incidentals doesn’t buy you access to the help…”
wish that were true
Villago Delenda Est
@Yevgraf (fka Michael):
And yet, the adamant refusal to even mention, let alone actually entertain or pass some tax hikes on the top 1% in order to, you know, balance things, is NOT just sweeping the issue under the rug.
Hard to get more obtuse than Cantor, but I’m sure he’ll find a way to top even this.
If we’re talking about the DSK case, we’re not talking about sex. We’re talking about rape.
If you think rape and sex are the same thing, you are one sick f*ck.
A comparison someone here made earlier: Do you think concentration camps and summer camps are the same? Hey, just because one involves coercion and violence and the other doesn’t, they’re really the same! Only a prissy puritan from the US would think there’s any difference at all.
JimC: show me a woman who became rich and famous by accusing a rich and famous man of rape. I am not talking about an accusation of “he paid me” (Spitzer) or “yes, we did it” (Lewinski). Again, rape, the kind of charge that could put a man in jail. The kind that will make your life fair game for anyone, that will put your life on hold as you testify at every trial and appeal. Momentarily notorious, yes. Rich and famous? Not so much.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
@Villago Delenda Est:
When I was 5, I argued like a conservative. I remember driving my mother to distraction over why I had committed some household crime.
Now, you might think that silly, but for me, “because” was a legitimate answer. Now, eventually that caused beatings and screaming after about 20 minutes of the “whos on first” bit, and inasmuch as I didn’t like the screaming and the beatings, I eventually learned that I had to give a real answer.
I’m guessing that Cantor never got the screaming and the beatings that I suffered, inasmuch as he seems to be missing the same thing that I missed at the age of 5. I blame his mother – she must have been a total tool.
Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther
@Nutella: (If there were a like button to click, I would click it about 100 times for this).
@Yevgraf (fka Michael): Oh great candy coated Jeebus let that be true! I already can’t see a scenario in which Obama won’t get 350 electoral votes. I thought that Cantor was stupid, but I didn’t think he was this epically stupid.
@shortstop: The thing is, there are free market solutions here. I wrote about that yesterday, based on this NYT article. It’s not hard– strong unions that prevent people from being fired, and, working with unions, strong incentives from tort law that make the hotel think that it’s in its best interests to assist in prosecuting rapists, rather than sheltering them, as we see in the last para of the NYT story.
The thing is, I got a commenter who actually looks at the world the way your parody does. “She could just call a cop (’cause they’re great at preventing you from getting fired a day later, that’s really a key part of their job) or not work there.”
And, of course, the self-professed party of free market solutions works ceaselessly to make policies that impede unions and tort law. Gosh, it’s almost like they don’t even care about what happens to anyone who’s not already wealthy and untouchable.
I know! I guess it would be wrong to even entertain the suggestion the OJ Simpson may, in fact, have been guilty. It is fustrating how often I have to point this out to people in conversations here, even the pretty liberal people with Oxbridge educations I know. I have to say there is a pretty ugly streak of anti-Americanism in Europe/UK, that has manifested itself most recently with concern over the OBL killing (“Why didn’t the beastly Yanks put him on trial?”) and DSK rape charges (even my pretty liberal Dad said “of course, rape Allegation, he hasn’t been convicted”), in a way a lot of people here don’t give two shits about domestic examples of injustice to persons either famous or not. I do my best to counter some of this, but heads have met brick walls with better results.
/ending rant from Foreign correspondant.
There you go again with the demands for “facts” and “evidence”. Is a simple, unsupported assertion no longer good enough?
OT: Holy Shit! By a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld a lower court order the California has to lower its prison population by 38,000-46,000 to relieve overcrowding. One guess who voted which way.
An example of what I mean and why I think we should always fully wait on all the facts before assuming the worst.
Before “Undercover Boss,” there was a show on the Discovery Channel (I think) where they took CEOs of corporations and had them do the crap jobs for a day. None of that silly surprise reveal stuff at the end, just getting to watch the CEO of California Pizza Kitchen try to wash dishes.
One of the shows that stuck with me was the head of Marriott hotels, who had to clean a room. The housekeeping staff was required to do it within 15 minutes. It took him over an hour.
Silly man, don’t you know that a persons intrinsic worth to society it directly related to their income? What’s a hotel housekeeper make, 25-3000? Piffle. Not worth anything like one of the masters of the universe who pull down that before coffee on Monday. A MOtU cannot be bothered with the insignificant right/feelings/person of people this low on the scale.
Learn your place boy.
Personally, I’m just going by the NYPD yanking the guy off the plane. That was real.
And it suggests a real strong possibility he did it. Certainly, up to this point, some people high up in the justice system are on board with finding out via a jury or a plea bargain.
So I’m just going with that.
DSK is entitled to a “presumption of innocence,” meaning he will have a chance to face his accuser in court and challenge the accusations made against him — that’s our system and he shouldn’t get any more or any less from it.
One thing that suggests to me that this is a pretty cut-and-dry case of a dirty old guy thinking he could attack a poor hotel maid and get away with it is the bald-faced classism, racism and chauvinism of his defenders, from Bernard Henri Levy to Ben Stein to Tim on this thread. If his views of women, gender and sexual violence are anything like those of the people defending him, let’s just say it makes it vanishingly unlikely that he was just innocently toweling himself off after a shower when a secret agent, dressed as a maid, broke into his hotel room, and began giving him an unsolicited blowjob so that she could collect DNA evidence to have him charged with rape.
Ha! Obama speaks Gaelic where is the outrage??
seriously cute video at bbc link
Funny, I don’t remember Tim barging into threads about OJ Simpson’s robbery trial and insisting that Simpson was innocent until proven guilty, so we weren’t allowed to discuss the alleged robbery.
You’d think that someone who cares so passionately about the fairness of our justice system would have done that, but apparently for Tim, the only defendants who are innocent until proven guilty are rape suspects.
Jim C: Thank you for making my point for me. She was notorious for her allotted 15 minutes. Then it all fell apart on her. As the story says, she didn’t even file the civil suit.
sorry that was very much OT.
The DSK story is still horrifying to me.
The French press reported today that they did find his DNA on the hotel employee.
@Mnemosyne: “You’d think that someone who cares so passionately about the fairness of our justice system would have done that, but apparently for Tim, the only defendants who are innocent until proven guilty are rape suspects.”
Oh, and the white ones.
True enough. But I was showing an example of why someone would be incented to make a false accusation. My reasoning was that there might be monetary or fame based reasons involved for why someone would want to do so.
In the first example I posted, the woman seems to be pretty clearly after money and deliberately targeted Gore. Another recent example might be the civil case that was made against Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger.
In many of these cases, it eventually does seem to come down to a civil suit.
Ben Roethlisberger (to my knowledge) refused to settle. On the other hand…
Kobe Bryant did…for an undisclosed sum of money.
To be clear, I’m not trying to say that some or even MOST of these cases aren’t valid and this isn’t a very serious issue, particularly due to the power discrepancy and these women not having a lot options in this economy if they get fired.
I’m only saying that there isn’t ZERO reason why a woman wouldn’t be incented to make a false accusation if the accusation is credible enough. For every case you hear about in the media, do you think there might be some that get settled immediately to avoid the scandal for money?
Amen! I worked for 2 years at a big hotel (in reservations, not housekeeping) and the reports from those in housekeeping were beyond belief; the stuff above, plus food everywhere, used condoms & tampons all over the room, just disgusting. Do these people live like this too? Why would you want to pay money to live in a room you’ve done that to?
You are, as usual, an idiot. How does that phrase imply guilt of any particular person? There are, apparently, statistics that bear out that hotel housekeepers are at particular danger of sexual assault. And this implies exactly what about anyone’s particular guilt in such an incident?
@Valdivia: Actually, that was Irish. Gaelic is what they speak in Scotland (pronounced roughly the same way Emeril Lagasse says garlic). Yes, the names have changed over the decades and folks on both sides of the pond are slow to keep up. And no, I don’t think the Beeb is going to get it right because the UK still doesn’t respect Ireland or the Irish people as a rule. Their radio plays still feature anti-Irish humor, after all.
As a repeat hotel guest over the decades, the answer is no. They take care of their own stuff just fine. It’s when it’s not their direct responsibility that they cease to give a shit. I’m the reverse. My living quarters are very untidy but I fret if I don’t stash my dirty laundry in a spare dresser drawer before the maid comes through.
I’m the same as you. I get MORE embarrassed when others can see my messes than I would in the privacy of my own home. I tend to do more cleaning while I’m on vacations in hotels than I would otherwise.
This is the worst:
I feel sick.
thanks for letting me know. had no idea!
That’s disgusting. Do these people think we live in feudal times? Oh, hell. Of course they do.
@Jim C.: I think Emma’s point, and it’s a good one, is that your life gets torn apart when you make these accusations. Kobe Bryant’s accuser got many vile calls during that whole trial.
And, spinning off from that to address the topic in general, frankly, it’s tiresome to me to have people strenuously argue the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing and ‘some women make up this shit’ mostly in the matter of rape cases. If it happened more evenly across the board, it wouldn’t chap my ass so much. But, as someone pointed out, it’s mostly in the question of rape that there is someone swooping in to question the integrity of the accuser.
Personally, when I go to a hotel, I don’t want to be disturbed at all, so it’s the sign on the door for me.
@Jazz Superluminar: [blockquote]IANAL, and this is sadly not the first thread here where I have had to point this out, but permit me to do so again: The presumption of innocence only applies to induviduals within the legal system. As ordinary members of society, the rest of us are free to speculate however we wish about someone’s guilt or innocence.[/blockquote]So, apart from asserting your right to mindlessly speculate, particularly in the absence of all the facts (either condemning or exculpatory), what is your point? That you have a God given right to indulge in idle gossip?
Exactly right. Victims of other crimes are not routinely accused of milking it for revenge, attention, drama, cash or publicity.
Jim C: Settlement of a civil suit is something different from going to jail. In the case of celebrities, many lawyers recommend to their clients that they settle, whether the accusation is true or not, because the “brand” can’t take the hit.
When a woman refuses to settle and presses her case, the onus falls on her. She is viciously attacked by high-priced defense attorneys; her sexual history is exposed down to her first make-out session when she was 15. Tabloids chase her family and friends, and some of those get seduced by the chance of easy money and give “personal interviews”. She gets threats and attacks from total strangers, especially if the rapist is famous and wealthy.
I suppose you can find someone willing to put up with that. Everything is possible in t his vale of tears. But I am certain that the majority of the women who press a criminal case of rape in court do it because it actually did happen.
Nope, I meant it as I wrote it. Witness the Arnold Swarzenschlonger case. No alleged rape there, but the story already dominates the headlines. In America, sex is the great no no. And headlines with sexual titillation are the BESTEST here.
MY god, you are an idiot.
@Villago Delenda Est:
Lord god in heaven, you are a tool. So for you this alleged incident is nothing more than an opportunity to masturbate over your very very concerned social self.
When in actuality, it is an actual criminal case, about which you know next to NOTHING except what you read in the ever reliable American press. Idiot.
So you REALLY don’t think set-ups occur? Fool.
You too are a super sensitive social masturbator, leaping to use this alleged incident as an excuse to reassure yourself how compassionate you are. Maybe there was a rape. Maybe not. Maybe somewhere in between..but that wouldn’t fit your desired narrative.
BTW, I never alleged that Obama was not born here, there, or anywhere else. It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest, even if I had voted for him. I care that this country have a good, honest, trustworthy President; I don’t give two shits where he comes from.
Any other off the wall accusations or innuendos?
You can’t “settle” a criminal case. I guess the victim could withdraw her cooperation from the prosecution (as I think happened in the Bryant case) and the case could collapse, but that doesn’t mean that the civil case “settled” the criminal one. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal case but still had to pay up in his civil case.
Actually getting criminal charges against someone would be a very dicey way to try and get a payout. I’m sure some people have tried it, because stupid people do stupid things, but you’d be much better off bringing the civil suit by itself and not trying to pursue a criminal complaint.
And Roethlisberger needs to be careful in fighting that case. The standard in a civil case is “preponderance of the evidence,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Given what I’ve read about the particulars, he could back himself into a really big payout.
ETA: As far as DSK being “famous,” I’m willing to bet that 90 percent of the population of the US had never even heard his name before, much less known what he did at the IMF. Frankly, he’s not famous enough to target on the basis of his fame.
Maybe, maybe not. But if they have done so, there is no way we already know what they found. Ever hear of evidence presented in trial? But you don’t need to pay any attention to those, because you have a super special mind meld with the NYC police dept, which of course has never been known to do anything underhanded either.
Thy name is Gullible.
But you don’t have to; that’s the beauty of it. You have your morning romp that leaves the room unfit for habitation, and then you leave for whatever else it is you’re going to do that day. When you come back, the housekeeper has gone through and cleaned up your mess and made the room nice again.
And yes, some of these people probably do live that way in the rest of their lives. They’re used to having servants around to clean up their messes, so they really start to think that messes just disappear without a thought.
Of course we are. But it would be nice if we did so based on some overall view of all the evidence available, and the realization that we usually know a tiny bit ahead of what comes up at trial.
I am again questioning the psychotic need among the American public to reach a predetermined judgement based on almost nothing except rumor and hearsay.
I’m guessing it’s a cheap way of feeling superior to the alleged perp, especially when said perp is rich and powerful.
Tim, we already know that you think all women are liars and rape doesn’t exist, so you’re becoming very repetitive.
Yes, yes, bitch set him up. Your perception has revealed the truth. Have anything new to say?
You really are a Nut- ella.
ALLEGED rape. you don’t know anything about what really went down in that hotel.
And yes, I believe that not all sex involves rape, but that all rape involves sex. YOu know, the weienie and/or the vag, and or the something or other that has a sexual connotation.
If the alleged perp here just smaacked the maid in the face we wouldn’t have a SEX crime or allegation of SEXUAL ASSAULT then, would we? Grow up.
I have no idea what the fuck your problem is, but I haven’t actually engaged in any mindless speculation on this case here. I merely pointed out, contra to what another commenter had been asserting, that yes we are all free to speculate as much as we fucking like about this case or any other we are not personally involved in as some part of the judicial system.
Personally, I do not know if DSK is guilty or not, but then neither do the legions of well-renumerated media figures who have blithely pronounced his innocence, and in the case of a couple of well-respected French magazines published the name and address of the victim. As someone of the left, my sympathies are pretty much with the person here who is most likely to have been treated abysmally, rather than the historically most likely to get away with ot figure, but I will, in fact, reserve judgement until I see more. I never thought you were all that dense as a commenter, but I guess I was wrong.
Wow. Was BJ around during the OJ Simpson trial? Did not know that.
As for “barging into threads,” I wasn’t aware this one had a door on it. Are threads only for people who want to stroke each other about their mutually held assumptions? Did not know that…
Tim: I just won my bet on how long it would take you to descend to insult. Butter pecan ice cream, in case you’re wondering. Thanks.
Ya know, I’m just going to let that stand as is. Most here are smart enough to see how you checkmate yourself. Good job, champ.
Villago Delenda Est
Yup, Tim is still a stupid motherfucker, who will defend some rich guy accused of rape against some maid any day of the week, regardless of the evidence.
Rich guys are ENTITLED to molest the staff.
Yes, Tim, this blog was around in 2007. Those were the halcyon days before you decided to stumble in here and vomit on every thread.
Fuck you. You know nothing about me except that I don’t blindly buy whatever appeals to me from the headlines, like yourself. I have two daughters in their twenties, you fucking ignorant pig. They are as smart and bright and valuable and reliable as any man their equal. I love and respect them more than life.
That love and respect does not, however, make me an idiot. What is your excuse?
But go on, keep making assumptions. That’s what this thread is about, after all.
Sorry for the delayed response all. Posting during work and, unfortunately, work sometimes demands full attention. Going to try and address all points.
Emma’s point is absolutely valid and your description of the point certainly spot on. I don’t want to, in any way, be construed as arguing otherwise. “Blame the victim” is a very real thing and a disgusting tactic.
The only problem is the one most central to rape cases: If the accused IS innocent, then they ARE the victim.
In which case, attacking the credibility of the accuser isn’t the dirty and slimy thing that it is when the accuser is the victim.
I think why you see more attacks on the accuser in rape cases than you do in other types of crimes is because, in many cases, these cases are difficult to prove and because they leave lasting consequences no matter what the end verdict is.
Emma – “In the case of celebrities, many lawyers recommend to their clients that they settle, whether the accusation is true or not, because the “brand” can’t take the hit.”
This is what I’m getting at in terms of the monetary motivations that could be involved to cause a false accusation.
Mnemosyne – Pardon me. Let me clarify what I mean by “settling”. I’m referring to either hush money (if the rape really happened) or blackmail money (if it didn’t).
For example: In the interview that the Colorado police had with Kobe Bryant, one of the things he allegedly asked them was whether or not he could make the situation go away with money.
“he should have done what Shaq does … that Shaq would pay his women not to say anything” and already had paid up to $1 million “for situations like this.”
When I speculated that there were probably more cases that we hadn’t heard of that were “settled” I was referring to out of court settlements like that and not criminal charges which I know can’t be settled.
@Villago Delenda Est:
You are a simpleton, and it shows. Your tiny black and white mind…lost in a gray universe. Fuck off.
Villago Delenda Est
The first assumption made was by you, and that it was that people were saying that DSK was guilty, let’s hang him now, there’s no need for a trial here, or to bother assembling evidence.
Demonstrating the awesome depth of your reading comprehension skills.
You moved forward from that incredibly chuckleheaded assumption and then proceeded to double and triple down on the stupid.
Which burns, btw.
Yes, I knew you would pull the “some of my best friends are women!” card out of your ass again. I think last time you only claimed to actually know some women.
You can love your daughters and still have contempt for the rest of womankind. That’s what bigotry is. It’s not exactly the conversation-ender you seem to think it is, unless you also want to claim that the fact that Strom Thurmond had a black daughter is proof that he wasn’t a racist despite, oh, his actions in the entire rest of his life.
@Tim, Interrupted: You are the one who turned it into a thread about the guilt or innocence of DSK. The rest of us were taking part in a thread about types of situations that hotel housekeeping staff routinely face. In conversations, people frequently use a story that is in the news, for example, the DSK arrest, as the starting point for another topic entirely. That is what was happening here.
You are the one with contempt for “womankind,” whatever that means.
Women are my equals. I think of and treat them as such. Please explain how doing so negates my responsibility to await evidence before forming assumptions? That’s kind of what using one’s mind is about.
Except in your case.
Villago Delenda Est
You may have to use more two and three syllable words to get through to Tim. He’s got some reading comprehension problems that seem to be insurmountable.
Given that you’ve formed an assumption that DSK is clearly innocent and is being railroaded, I think you’re going to have to explain the process to us. At this point, there could be video of him attacking the maid and you would still insist that she’s lying.
YOu know, it is the shamelessness of your misdirection/bullshit that is most galling: Nowhere in this thread or elsewhere have I ever said that DSK is innocent, clearly or otherwise. Nor have I ever said that the maid is lying.
The whole point is that I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE, AND NEITHER DO YOU. I have no way of knowing and neither do you.
But unlike you, I do not find it necessary to make such assertions one way or the other.
Now…could you explain why you find yourself making baldly innacurate assertions, such as in this last post, in support of your “position?”
So I’m guessing this “responsibility” is codified somewhere, somehow? Wait what’s that? Oh it’s not. You just made that shit up? I am totally surprised. It’s almost as if people commenting on blogs can say whatever the fuck they want about a case if they don’t have roles within the judicial system. Fancy that!
Villago Delenda Est
Go back and look at the beginning of the thread.
No one said DSK was guilty.
All that was said was that hotel staff people put up with a great deal of grief, and it’s documented. The DSK case was the starting point for a different conversation.
YOU are the one who made it specifically about DSK, and not the general discussion that it started out as.
This was pointed out to you REPEATEDLY, yet, you are the one who introduced the misdirection in the first place.
You are projecting. HUGELY.
I do not know if DSK is guilty or innocent. I do not know what the evidence against him is. If I were selected to sit on the jury that tries him, I’d pay attention to the evidence presented at trial. His status as a wealthy, powerful individual would be irrelevant to me.
It’s obviously NOT irrelevant to you, because you started misdirecting in precisely that direction. That the man was being singled out because of his status, and was being judged based on it. The inverse of course is the maid is trying to profit from this personally by bringing the charges forth. That somehow this guy is famous and therefore a target for a setup. When in fact I’d never heard of him before this broke last week…which I’m sure is true for most people, to include the staff at the hotel. Just some rich guy in the Presidential suite…who apparently thinks he’s entitled, from his past history, to have his way with women without regard to their consent.
More red herrings…who would have thought? Please point out where I said you CANNOT say stupid, ignorant shit on the Internet. Or that other people can’t point it out when you do?
Are you saying people never say untrue, stupid, or irresponsible things on the Internet? Why, sure they do! And when that happens, others get to mock and refute accordingly!
Interesting how that works…
yeah, just like morons were free to speculate about Obama’s birth certificate. You assert a trivial use of a freedom. And note that this is different from discussion about the social issues raised. But speculating about guilt or innocence is idiotic, plain and simple.
And that’s the beginning and the end of it, whether you are posting in a blog or a “well respected journalist” spouting off in a French magazine.
I thought that people on the left, especially Balloon Juicers, were deeply concerned about civil liberties, not just sympathy for “those most likely” to have been treated abysmally. Conservatives like to pick and choose when it comes to justice. Why play their game?
Point noted, but why rationalize defending those who are eager to jump to conclusions? That’s all I’m sayin.
This doesn’t begin to tell the whole story with respect to the Steelers quarterback.
Seems to me that you can make a good case that Ben has benefited from privilege and and fans who do not want to believe that he would be capable of a despicable act. Or worse, that some people are inconsistent with respect to applying the extremely important principle of the presumption of innocence.
An alternative interpretation is that Ben was innocent and that’s why the DA declined to move forward? There wasn’t enough evidence to convict because he didn’t do it?
I personally have no idea if Ben was guilty or not. But assuming he’s guilty is just as bad as assuming he’s innocent isn’t it?
And while it is certainly possible that Ben got off because of his fame/celebrity/money creating a double standard that benefited him, if he was actually innocent then all those things created a double standard that hurt him. Most people accused of rape don’t have national media reporting on it.
I was going to respond, but I think Villago Delenda Est covered it.
Whoa. Where did Tim say either that DSK was clearly innocent or that the maid was lying? Seems to me that he was merely stating the obvious, that speculation about his guilt is as groundless, and that attempts to smear the maid are despicable.
I understand the outrage that a lot of people are expressing, and especially the reaction to some of the outrageous crap coming from the French media. But as I have noted before, you can’t easily pick and choose which civil liberties you want to celebrate. As hard as it might be, as unsavory as a suspected assailant might be, jumping to conclusions about either guilt or innocence just doesn’t work.
@Brachiator: Actually, no one was discussing DSK’s guilt or innocence until Tim barreled in to condemn people for condemning him.
ok, better post, lets talk..
In reverse order
I’m failing to see how asserting we don’t even need to pay lip service to the presumption of innocence here is “rationalizing” other’s beliefs. We can say what we like, it’s all ok (I will come back to this as part of my wider point).
So there’s no difference between me saying something here about some dude who’s already been written about everywhere, and a well-read magazine publishing the name and further details of a hotel maid who is claiming to be the victim here? You can’t believe that. And FWIW, I would have been happier with DSK’s name never being released in the first place, in order to better secure a fair trial.
Sorry, but this just really pisses me off. Obama’s BC was a non-issue as far as the facts of it go from before he was even elected POTUS. Any attempt to bring it up after that was purely motivated by racism, it was completely bullshit. To say I am in that same ballpark really is beneath you and please retract that particular stupidity… As to trivial uses of freedom, I actually only bought up the legal point was because someone here made the rather strange comment that we shouldn’t blame DSK for anything, even though no one else had actually brought that up. It would, however, make sense if that person was attempting to defend Mr S-K’s honor against the little people making allegations. Given the propensity of many of those in the media, mostly but not exclusively on the right, to defend both M. Strauss Khan and Mr. Polanski, among other luminous celebrity rapists, I am quite happy trying to rebalance that in favor of a group who have traditionally been ignored/laughed at for daring to mention such things.
So no, I don’t know if DSK is innocent or not, but I’ll fucking well put up a good fight for the poorly paid, struggling hotel maid from Africa to be able to make a decent case without being shit on by the powerful and wealthy, and my only question is why aren’t you and Tim standing by my side?
Point noted. But for whatever reason, some people didn’t just re-emphasize that they were talking about general issues raised by the case, but began expressing hostility toward Tim for harping on trivial civil liberties stuff like the presumption of innocence. And another poster asserted the blogger first amendment, the right to uninformed speculation in the absence of facts.
Your alternative interpretation conveniently omits the accuser, who is standing by her original charge.
Your original post was disingenuous. You implied that perhaps Kobe was guilty because he settled, while Ben was innocent because he did not.
@Tim, Interrupted: I am trying to paraphrase what you said.
Those are your words, so you should take care to craft them better.
@Tim, Interrupted: Well you’re half right you have no clue. You keep insisting on over generalizing.
You know better. Ergo, you’re a troll.
1. My alternative interpretation does not in any way omit the accuser. It simply points out that just because someone is accused does not make them automatically guilty.
You stated that it looks like Ben got off because of his celebrity, wealth and fame. I merely pointed out that he could have gotten off simply because the DA felt there wasn’t enough proof to convict him, which could be because of innocence rather than celebrity, wealth and fame.
2. My original post does not imply guilt or innocence on the part of either Ben or Kobe. It pointed out that some athletes choose to settle rather than draw out a long civil suit in the hopes of making something go away and this could be a financial incentive to motivate false accusations.
@Jazz Superluminar: RE: And that’s the beginning and the end of it, whether you are posting in a blog or a “well respected journalist” spouting off in a French magazine.
Don’t twist my words. The publishing of details about the alleged victim is despicable and indefensible. By the way, this becomes somewhat ironic when compared to the controversy in the UK over celebrities and well connected figures getting superinjunctions to prevent the press from publishing details about their private lives merely in order to preserve their reputations, even when the details are demonstrably true. Issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are being slapped around all over the place.
On the other hand, it is absolutely trivial to defend speculating about a person’s guilt or innocence by bringing up the difference between gossip and legal proceedings.
Happily retracted. I didn’t need that example to make my point.
I missed the post where someone claimed that DSK shouldn’t be blamed for anything. I still don’t see that the divine right to gossip is a corrective.
And note here that I understand people’s outrage and their desire to discuss all aspects of the case. But I have also noted a variation of the same kind of crap that you get from conservatives, namely that DSK must be guilty because he was arrested, along with the odd pseudo-liberal cant that he must be guilty because he is an upper class swine victimizing someone from a lower class.
I note that quite a number of Polanski’s defenders were liberals, including people who believe that artists deserve a pass for their transgressions. There were also quite a number of Polanski defenders among Balloon Juice posters in a past thread. I agree that most of DSK’s defenders appear to be unhinged conservatives, although I also note that some French people see his case as a political smear meant to derail his chance to become president. I don’t know what investment these people have in DSK’s career.
This is important. My browser is acting up again. Let me come back to this shortly.
Cliff in NH
Fuck You Trolls.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
And because he has a history or doing this kind of thing. And because there’s physical evidence that he did it. And because he’s changed his story from “I have an alibi” to “it was consensual.” And because he was arrested while in the process of fleeing the country. And because the victim is taking a huge risk of having her life fucking destroyed by pressing these charges without any real chance of gaining anything from doing so.
Or is that all just idle gossip as well?
This one is easy. I don’t like mobs of any ideology. I don’t like it when people substitute the idea of justice for retribution because of a person’s social class or lack of social class. I have seen too many examples in which people hide behind the rule of law in order to enforce their will on someone they don’t like, so I try hard not to take sides when I don’t know the facts. I don’t trust people, especially when they are excited by sensational cases, and understand that justice (as opposed a Scalia like mechanical application of the law) is hard, and must be zealously and fairly applied. I don’t trust people, especially when they demonstrate time after time that they are willing to sacrifice victims for all kinds of stupid reasons. For example, it is ironic that we have this New York case involving the powerful and the powerless, when there has been another recent New York case which demonstrates how blind tribalism can seek to thwart justice:
Sounds a lot like some of the hoopla surrounding the DSK case, doesn’t it? Only here, we also have an actual conviction. And yet this case gets little publicity, not even from people who claim to want to stand with the powerless. Political expediency?
And I’ve seen people go on and on about evidence, eye witness testimony and a defendant’s past history, and watched these same people go silent over cases in which a person, imprisoned for years, finally gets released when this supposedly impregnable mountain of evidence is toppled by something more definitive, or by revelations of prosecutorial misconduct.
So yeah, I stand with the maid, but I also stand for wanting to see a fair trial. I don’t see a contradiction here. Which side are you on?
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Brachiator: You’d have a point if anyone was actually calling for DSK to not get a trial.
Yeah, I think he did it. I also think that needs to be proven in a court of law. If the prosecutors can’t do so, then he should go free.
I don’t see any contradiction.
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: RE: But I have also noted a variation of the same kind of crap that you get from conservatives, namely that DSK must be guilty because he was arrested, along with the odd pseudo-liberal cant that he must be guilty because he is an upper class swine victimizing someone from a lower class.
Three words: Duke Rape Case. The initial news reports were all about a slam dunk of evidence. There were stories about the past behavior by the Duke defendants, and the long tawdry history of men of privilege at that school.
But the case was a tissue of lies, and the prosecution had even illegally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.
Also, actual lawyers answer this question. Wouldn’t a defendant’s past bad behavior be excluded, if it was not germane to the charges against him? And yes, it was a hard won victory that a woman’s past sexual history is deemed irrelevant in rape trials.
And for the sake of people slow on the uptake, braindead conservatives try to evoke the Duke case as an example of a prosecutor trying to placate the black community. But the hard truth is that you had a craven prosecutor itching for a conviction, using techniques that he regularly employed against poor and less ably well represented defendants to try to get the accused to accept a deal because the evidence against them was supposedly overwhelming.
And for the sake of those who are hopelessly dense, I am not saying in any way, shape or form that DSK is innocent. But I don’t convict anyone based on what has been released to the newspapers, especially when there has not even been a trial.
It’s an obvious contradiction if you believe that what you think about DSK needs to be proven in a court of law. But thank you for proving my point.
Cliff in NH
Cliff in NH – May 23, 2011 | 8:32 pm · Link
Fuck You Trolls.
Cliff in NH
as if there are no security cams in a high $$$ motel.
Cliff in NH
Everyone just runs screaming to their co-workers and police about rape with physical evidence for shits and grins.
Yup, happens All the time in ReThuglicanLand.
Fuck You Trolls.
Jesus, people. I have read every comment, which might persuade counsel to reject me as a juror in this case, but in fact, I’d be perfectly capable of serving, because I understand that it’s about the state proving its case. It’s about the evidence, about what’s admissible, about jury instructions, about what charges the prosecutor chooses to bring. There’s what happened, and there’s what can be proved to have happened. When the state does its job right, when everyone in law enforcement and prosecution dots the i’s and crosses the t’s, then we get an outcome that makes sense. And there’s nothing special about me. I know the difference between discussing stuff and being a sworn trier of fact. I can do both things. So can a lot of other people. Don’t panic.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Brachiator: Ah yes, that horrible Duke rape case. The one where the suspects were cleared of all charges and the prosecutor lost his job in disgrace. What a travesty of justice that was.
No. Read this carefully. Here, I’ll make it easy for you to see: DSK MUST BE PROSECUTED IN A COURT OF LAW BEFORE HE FACES ANY PUNISHMENT. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH MY OPINION OF HIS GUILT, BECAUSE I AM NOT RULER OF THE WORLD. MY OPINION HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON WHETHER HE WILL BE PUNISHED.
Is it your contention that nobody should have a fucking opinion on anything until the courts weigh in?
Oh come on, rape =! sex. The accusation against DSK is about rape, not about fooling around with the maid. Arnold is the one fooling around with the maid, and I really doubt that that would do anything bad to his box office appeal.