Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
In my opinion, the argument was entirely between people with agenda-driven opinions, and no one at all would have been "abused" if (yes) the story had been reported impartially in the first place, or if the response had been a healthy detached scepticism rather than driven by incredulity.
It's the difference between;
"I'm not sure if this entirely adds up, let's wait and see how it unfolds"
and
"You're 'avin a larf aintcher??? What a load of NONSENSE!!! Definitely untrue!"
An alleged attack victim should be given the benefit of the doubt until there IS evidence that contradicts it... and as it turns out, it wouldn't have required much patience to wait for this one to start unravelling.
And I have to stand by the opinion that Alf got the ban for the spectacle he made once vindicated / the additional things he said, and not because "people couldn't handle being wrong".
I do agree though that there are certain names suddenly missing from the thread now that the narrative has changed but I don't know that there's much point harping on about that or making it a character flaw... I mean not to be too patronising but we all had to learn at some point, and there's nothing inherently WRONG with wanting to believe the best in people when they say something has happened to them.
|
There was the unharmed sandwich tbf
