I want this sushi dinner to be the tits, Charlie!

Personally I’d recommend extreme caution in all medical matters

I hear how he faces mutiny and everyone is outraged and his party is on the verge of implosion every other day. It was the same with all the others.

Is YouTube a socmed site?

Do you know what I am saying?

Let’s find out.

Has this become a last word fight?

Wow, how trenchant.

Lol, meaning what? I get a lot of greeting cards? I know a lot of middle-aged women? More weak sauce.

Worthy of Clintons. Scratch that, worthy of a wine-obsessed middle-aged woman’s Facebook.

Oh, we’ve started with the belittling approach; trying to condescend your way out? How cheap.

Because I don’t think it’s common knowledge, it goes some way to explaining (not excusing mind you, before you start salivating) what may or may not have happened. What’s more, I don’t think people want to know - or want others to know - because it muddies the waters and they just want good vs. bad.

I’m doing a great job sticking to my objectivity, it’s just that when all you’re surrounded by is half the story, anything contrary to the picture that that paints, looks like complete polar opposition.

I wasn’t mentioning it in that spirit, certainly not in his defence. I think there’s a difference between understanding and condonation that many (to wit, you) fail to appreciate.

Also, I don’t think advocating reason and due process should be stigmatised, whatever the motivation.

And it’s not reductive to weigh the issue based solely on your circumstances?

There’s a weight of evidence to suggest a correlation. There’s evidence to the contrary, too, which should also be considered. I just wondered if anybody’s factoring it in at all, I certainly haven’t heard or read mentioned much in mainstream news.

Yeah, no problem with any of that, but snarky schadenfreude propagated on a preemptive assumption of guilt should be avoided. At least, that’s my opinion.

Enough for what, exactly? Keelhauling? Chemical castration? Written warning? What level of censure do you deem appropriate based on that fact?

Well, that kind of reductive thinking is massively helpful. Do all the abusees who are over thirty know about the rules you’ve made up? People don’t realise how simple the matter is!

I’m not even defending the guy, I’m asking for people to avoid tunnel vision and take in the full facts, when they are all available.

He probably would’ve been, had he been alive when the evidence came forward. At the same time, it probably only came to light because he was dead. Either way, it’s pretty weighty, but as you say, people are welcome to their doubts.

Mother Theresa thought suffering brought you closer to God - as such, many of her charges were kept in pain - that was her opinion. Let’s not pretend opinions can’t be dangerous. You, for example, are making passionate, prejudicial assertions in lieu of the full facts; out for blood, death by keyboard. Your ‘opinions’ and others like it are the papilloma pustule on the internet’s prick, infectious ooze from a massive wang.

Let’s see what comes out and draw conclusions in our turn and quit all this frothing at the gash.

He was regularly abused as a kid, so I’m certain he’s damaged quite severely, but I’d like more evidence before I bang the gavel, I’d suggest you do likewise.

Probably not, and even then it’d be taxpayer money, which is totally unfair.