37
The Answer is Not a Hut in the Woods [Rule]
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
37 points (100.0% liked)
196
17534 readers
470 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
After some digging, it looks like he was accused but never charged
The police bungled the case (along with a bunch of other similar cases) so they never brought charges against him or a lot of other people.
Pretty shitty though that the police came out and said he was responsible and didn't bring charges. If they're confident enough to make a statement like that then they should be confident enough to charge someone.
I'm in the camp of "innocent until proven guilty" so even though there's an accusation I'm still not going to fully dump the dude
Edit to elaborate further: Basically I think the police were wrong to say that he was responsible if they're not confident enough to bring charges and have him face a court of law. If they're going to say what they said they should have charged him, by not doing so it really seems like they're banking on the, "He's a public figure so it's harder for him to prove defamation."