One of the strengths of the Kiwi Farms is in being able to back up claims with archived evidence. In contrast to what our opponents say, we don't just make shit up to attack people. Is Fong-Jones a brick-faced freak who's trying to ruin the Internet to take down a site he doesn't like? Clearly yes. Is he a rapist? Impossible to say for sure at this point, maybe that could change in the future if the accuser or other possible victims come forward and talk about their side of the story.
My stance, very much in support of backed-up claims with archived evidence, is that Liz Fong-Jones admitted to a consent accident. As has been pointed out, he didn't coin the phrase - some other BDSM guy did. I seem to remember there even being a proven connection in those kink circles between that man and Liz, shown in the thread, but I could be misremembering there.
In Liz's own account, sexual contact happened and then consent was withdrawn, after the fact, due to dog hair (and not just from a pet, because Liz doesn't just have pets, it had to be a service dog because always remember he is a victim). He equated it with what he calls a consent accident, but to hold him to the standards of the culture he marinates in, that is equivalent to sexual assault - rape. Whether it's because you believe Liz is bullshitting around with the the reality of the dog hair situation, or merely holding him to the standards he and his ilk hold others to, what he has admitted to is committing what he euphemistically refers to a 'consent accident'.
Now, the person he's being accused of consent accidenting is likely a bugfuck insane troon - they had been Liz Fong-Jones's friend for 8 years, and no one who willingly not only associates with Liz Fong-Jones but is willing to 'play' with him can be considered particularly compos mentis. The potential for it to not be true is possible - troons love accusing each other of rape after all. But, even if we are to make the mistake in believing his version of events word for word, in a very Liz Fong-Jones style the entire 'explanation' is full of weasel words and phrasing. So whether you #believeallwomen or are just holding Liz to his own standards, he is an admitted rapist, in that even in his retelling, his partner did not consent to sexual contact. Withdrawn after the fact, and probably not in any country where a penis is legally required to meet the definition of the word 'rape', but it counts. And I don't think that rule applies to Australia or North America, his main two locations.
