Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank1 min ago
Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
63 Answers
http://
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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. //
// 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. //
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
