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?

[andy-hughes]

jno - // aog's original post was more than a month ago and the link does indeed refer only to one woman. He wasn't to know there would be more. //

Indeed he wasn't - but neither was I when I posted on this situation back on 1 November.

It appears that my summation of the situation was correct - and AOG must make his own decision about whether or not to comment on his assertion that a man's career is in shreds 'just on the words of one female ...' as he so delicately phrased it.

[andy-hughes]

For information, my post on the matter two days after the OP was posted -

// If the actor's contract is up for renewal, then of course the company is under no obligation to take up their option.

However, I have read the word 'terminated' in the media which suggests that he was under contract, and Granada have dismissed him.

I am quite sure that there is more to the story than is apparent from AOG's question - were it simply the word of one individual that would quite correctly be seen as unfair.

However, Granada are not stupid, and their lawyers will have advised them in advance that the termination will stick.

That coupled with an apparent absence of righteous anger and claims to be innocent, and looking for a day in court on behalf of the actor in question, he appears to be accepting his fate without question, which does infer that he regards fighting it as being against his best interests. //

[jno]

andy, my reply was really for baldric, but it'll do for you as well. I'm just pointing out that aog posted on the facts as known at the time. I was among those who said there was probably stuff we didn't know, but there's no point anyone using hindsight to say aog got it wrong.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // andy, my reply was really for baldric, but it'll do for you as well. I'm just pointing out that aog posted on the facts as known at the time. I was among those who said there was probably stuff we didn't know, but there's no point anyone using hindsight to say aog got it wrong. //

I have no problem with AOG getting it wrong - but he had the same information as I did, and I did not assume that 'some female' had assassinated Mr Langley's career because that's the sort of thing that 'females' do - and that was the assumption that AOG made, and that is what I am calling him out on.

[naomi24]

I don't watch any of the soaps so I've no idea who this man is. However, according to tonight's news he's admitted his inappropriate behaviour. Not a lot anyone can say after that.

[Mamyalynne]

You'd think so Naomi wouldn't you?


But...

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Not a lot anyone can say after that. //

At least one person can say that Mr Langley's career is in shreds because of his own boorish drunken illegal behaviour, and not simply 'just on the words of one female' - let's see what tomorrow brings.

[jno]

that's fine, andy; but aog's assumption was solidly based on the facts as they were known. We all now know different because we know more.

[naomi24]

Mamyalynne, yes you would.... but as you say ,,,,'but'....

[andy-hughes]

jno - // that's fine, andy; but aog's assumption was solidly based on the facts as they were known. We all now know different because we know more. //

I cannot agree.

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' - even though the police thought differently, and the news piece confirms that they were interviewing him about what had happened.

His view is anything but 'solidly based'.

[jennyjoan]

I just think it so sad that Bruno's name is tarred with the same brush as those rapists and paeodphiles out there. So sorry for his family as well as himself. When I saw him briefly on TV tonight - the whole family looked "broken".

[Baldric]

jno, I'm sure you would agree that AOG had the same chance to update his info that I had, difference is I took it.

[ummmm]

And who is tarring him with the same brush as rapists and paedophiles?

[jennyjoan]

The Law and the general public

[ummmm]

I don't think so JJ. What a silly thing to say.

[jennyjoan]

For God's sake Ummmm - his name is badly tarnished. His family, wife, child - the heap. They're all broken-hearted.

[Mamyalynne]

He is not in the category at all JJ, he has admitted his actions and been dealt with.

[jennyjoan]

Ummmm - please don't call me silly - I'm everything but.

[jennyjoan]

Mamy - he will always be remembered as the guy who "was out of order".

[Mamyalynne]

I know that many a person would not be called out for such lewd drunken acts and be allowed to stagger off into the distance - he wasn't.

Luck of the draw when you behave like that.

I don't see him as a rapist or a paedophile simply a foolish young man.

Hopefully he's learned something from this.