Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027757/Coronation-Street-Bruno-Langley-sacked-assault-claim.html

A man's career in shreds just on the words of one female. Bill Roach and Michael Le Vell both made a come back after certain accusations, were Coro to quick to sack Bruno?

[ummmm]

JJ...it is 'very' silly to think that people might view this along the same lines of paedophilia and rape.

Everytime I click out of this thread I've forgotten his name so I very much doubt his name has been tarnished forever. Plus...he could always change it...

[jno]

/// AOG has assumed that one 'female' has decided ruin an actor's career, an assumption based on nothing other than his apparent belief that there is no veracity in the claims made by said 'female' ///

That's not what he said, though. He said "just on the words of one female" - that's all. Nowhere did he suggest she "decided" to "ruin his career." Nor did he say a single word about the veracity of the claims.

He said Langley's career was in shreds: correct. He said it was on the words of one woman: also correct, as far as anyone knew at the time. The rest is hindsight.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // He said it was on the words of one woman: also correct, as far as anyone knew at the time. The rest is hindsight. //

Actually he didn't - he said 'one female'.

I am taking issue, not with AOG not knowing the facts, none of us did at that time, but assuming that 'one female' is the root cause of Mr Langley's career implode.

AOG's stance is clearly that a woman is the cause of this, and his reference to her as 'one female' indicates the lack of respect with which he views her, or the potential seriousness of the offence committed against her.

My point is not about not knowing the facts, it is about making tall assumptions which have proven to be incorrect.