That was a good point, but putting on my armchair psychologist hat, pipe and beard, it seems clear to me there was a lot of self-loathing wrapped up in that in his case. I just found it sad, not repulsive.

To the discussions above, "Not Guilty" and "Guilty" are legal terms and although they hopefully have something to do with whether the defendant did or did not do the acts of which they are accused, it is no guarantee.

Put it this way, if I ask someone who believes the Bush administration lied, "Why do you think they lied?" I can pretty much guarantee I get a more substantial answer than if I ask someone who believes Michael Jackson molested children, "Why do you think that?"

But having said that, I take the points on board and you're right, I can't really say the individual isn't right to question, given the information they've received – which is likely to be largely sensationalist conjecture from the media (I'm not going to argue the details of the settlement of the original civil suit now by the way, but I will say there was more to it than your comment suggests).

Before suggesting – distinct from merely asking the question – that someone is/was a paedophile, or outright saying they were like a certain congressman on youtube has, we should have more than just a vague impression gleaned from the media, that doesn't stand up when what evidence there is (or isn't) is considered objectively. I really disagree with the idea that a celebrity – or anyone – should have to change their life if falsely accused of something, or forever be suspected. I do recognize that in our society that is sadly the case. But I'll still keep on objecting to it.

Although in this instance I think I did overreact somewhat, for which I apologise. It's probably down to the sheer amount of dubious commentary in the media as a whole and I think I mentioned a certain congressman…

By the way, thanks for taking the time to reply to those comments, I appreciate it.