Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy
Who is 'Sophie?'... We have no idea if this is genuine.
Even if it is all it states essentially is he asks for advice, not stating who reached out to whom initially and a suggestion it would be good to talk, as someone who it appears he felt able to talk to on the issue as a friend... but that is twisted, now he is painted as some kind of predator a friendly chat is something that is now a sinister precursor to abuse of some description.
This whole thing is now so screwed up, it has no basis in reality or truth and that's not even given any consideration, why are there accusations of minimising we don't know what happened initially to even get a perspective on the issue only a few media reports and this anonymous monologue.
Trial by media, I'm sorry but there is no other explanation.
|
I agree with you on that ‘Sophie’ thing.Reading it,It’s basically a load of nothing.Sounds like she’s just jumping on the bandwagon going to the papers.No actual facts about any wrong doing.
Trying to be objective after reading the Guardian and the Mail i think he’s definitely done something/s but it’s possibly been blown out of proportion a little.
The allegation in the US the charges were dropped.That doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t do anything but there’s also no proof he did.
I’m inclined to believe the other one is possibly true.He didn’t quit the charity for nothing.I think he knew he’d done wrong.
Overall,My opinion is that It doesn’t look good for him.He sounds like he had a problem with booze and got too touchy feely with women and turned into abit of a sex pest and him and his boss possibly egged each other on.
I think they thought it was a laugh and didn’t mean any malice But that doesn’t make it right and i think most people would lose their job over that.He quit one job before the hearing so he knew he’d crossed a line.
I think he was a pervy bloke and it sounds like he got a reputation for it,I also think he was a cheat.
He probably deserved to lose his job due to his behaviour.