Brendan Cox, has quit two charities he set up in his wifes' memory after allegations of sexual assault were made public.
Mr Cox denied assaulting a woman in her 30s at Harvard University in 2015 - but admitted to "inappropriate" behaviour while working for Save the Children.
Isn't it sickening how some people can hide behind the masquerade of charity to further their own unwanted sexual advances?
He isn't a target because his wife was murdered, he's a target because he's a pervert*. Embarking on a career of pious moralising didn't help either. *Pervert may be the wrong word. I'm a working class man who mixes in working class circles. That's the word we use for blokes who are 'inappropriate' with women. I'd be happy to use a different SHORT one.
Am I the only one to be perturbed by the use of this phrase 'inappropriate behaviour'? This covers a multitude of sins, ranging from the very mild to the deadly serious.
I'd find it hard to believe that ANY of us if propelled into the media would not have some inappropriate behaviour in our past. I absolutely know I have been over forward and flirtatious with many men however I feel absolutely innocent of any malice or misdemeanour.
>>Isn't it sickening how some people can hide behind the masquerade of charity to further their own unwanted sexual advances?
Aw come on don't be so judgemental.
We seem to be in a period when what may have been an innocent act a few years ago (putting your arm round someone for example) is now seen as the worse sex act ever.
We have no idea what he is alleged to have done and until we do know we should not comment on it.
The quote I have seen from Cox is an admission that he made mistakes while working for Save the Children.
That is very different from admitting to inappropriate hehaviour, which he denies.
If yoy have a link where he admits inappropriate behaviour to this woman, I wilk gladly view it, and may change my view.
As it is, it just looks like trial by media based on unsubstantiated allegations, and his only real crime is that he is a bit of a gobby leftie.
He has tweeted the following:
‘Last week I decided to step down from my public roles to face up to mistakes I made several years ago while at Save the Children. I apologise to people I offended or upset at the time. My actions were never malicious but they were at times inappropriate.’
Just to repeat....
‘They were at times inappropriate’.
// He conceded that there were "instances" where he made people feel uncomfortable at Save the Children which were viewed as inappropriate, adding: "I think that charge is a fair one."
He continued: "Certainly, I had too much to drink at times. //
There does seem to be substance to the allegation. Right that he has stepped down. I am still uneasy that he is a ‘target’ because his wife was murdered.
In an attempt to find a less scrupulous source than the BBC in the hope of finding something "juicy", I happened on the Sun website.
Some of the comments below are ... "interesting".
One sensing some crowing going on in certain quarters, if not exactly targeting.
He isn't a target because his wife was murdered, he's a target because he's a pervert*.
Embarking on a career of pious moralising didn't help either.
*Pervert may be the wrong word. I'm a working class man who mixes in working class circles. That's the word we use for blokes who are 'inappropriate' with women. I'd be happy to use a different SHORT one.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.