DrZoidberg
Contributor
So he was found guilty. But I find this a bit troubling. Its all word against word. No witnesses. No physical evidence. 20 years after the fact.
In the British comedian circuit he was notorious. A lot of female comedians "knew". So I think he was probably guilty. But that's not evidence.
I feel pretty uncomfortable about his conviction. No matter how much I dislike him. Or think he's probably guilty of a lot of it. I see a problem with women being able to get a guy convicted without evidence.
What do you think?
In the British comedian circuit he was notorious. A lot of female comedians "knew". So I think he was probably guilty. But that's not evidence.
I feel pretty uncomfortable about his conviction. No matter how much I dislike him. Or think he's probably guilty of a lot of it. I see a problem with women being able to get a guy convicted without evidence.
What do you think?