Bill O'Reilly shitcanned from Fox

[The Romulan Republic]

Although I strongly disagree with O-Reilly on many things, I don't think its really appropriate to effectively fire someone before allegations have been proven in court.

Perhaps, but this is hardly the first time such allegations have been made against Bill.

[Tribble]

Perhaps, but this is hardly the first time such allegations have been made against Bill.

The settlements with former accusers wasn't "public opinion". They were actual legal settlements.

Which is exactly my point. What do we as the public know? What is the record in these proceedings? What were the reasons for the settlements, if any were given? At what stage of the proceedings were the settlements made? Was it done before a trial took place? During trial? After? What evidence was presented? Was it scrutinized? Were there any admissions of guilt / liability? I don't know how much detail is out there. We know that at least in one instance there was an alleged recording (was that actually proven?)

My rambling is more directed towards the people who love go and get their pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers ready before there have have even been any formal proceedings.

Perhaps, but this is hardly the first time such allegations have been made against Bill.

A big point in law is that past behaviour does not mean that current allegations are automatically true. Should he have been fired for previous behaviour? Perhaps. Should he be fired for the current circumstances? Maybe. But I would prefer it if there was some actual process involved over media / public frenzy, no matter who that person is.

[The Romulan Republic]

True, but numerous accusations from multiple accusers definitely make it seem more likely that he's actually guilty, as opposed to just someone falsely accusing him.

[Flagg]

Hi, this is the planet Earth where you don't get to keep your job if your interactions with colleagues violates their rights as human beings and ends up causing problems for your employer. Especially when your job is to bring in advertiser dollars and your conduct becomes so reprehensible that advertisers won't even chuck pennies at you from cars. Sorry you don't like this planet, feel free to get back on your space vessel and fly to a planet more to your liking!

Hi, welcome to western civilization, where people have decided to at least try and setup a legal system that allows for a defendant to defend themselves from accusations before being punished, and the assumption that people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a formal process like a court or tribunal. Novel concept for you, I know! If you enjoy just getting to the stone throwing part of the process, there are plenty of places around which I think would suit your needs nicely.

God damn you are out of touch with reality. He's not a "defendant" at Fox, he's an "employee". He's only afforded the federal, state, and municipal rights afforded an "employee" along with whatever is in his contract. But as an "employee", if his employer decides that he's violated said contract (I can guarantee he had a morals clause) or even if they want to do it for shits and giggles, as long as none of the rights he is afforded to by the previously mentioned government protections are violated, they can have Bruce, Brock, and Bruno from security pack his shit in a box, and frogmarch the piece of shit to the nearest exit.

If he feels he's been wronged (and I'm sure he does, he's an old privileged white male) then he can by all means sue Fox and get laughed out of court. In fact IIRC, he tried to sue someone once and that already happened.

Go home, Martian.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So let me get this straight... Unless found guilty in a civil or criminal court, all should be forgiven by his employer. In such a case, if he just keeps settling out of court does that mean he obviously should keep his job? I mean, he didn't get found guilty in court so we can't just assume that the guy who has settled out of court to the tune of $13 million has maybe been a shit to women. What is the truth?

Quit being obtuse. Bill O'Reilly is never going to be found guilty in court because if he thinks there's any sliver of a possibility he'll just settle out of court.

[Gandalf]

God damn you are out of touch with reality. He's not a "defendant" at Fox, he's an "employee". He's only afforded the federal, state, and municipal rights afforded an "employee" along with whatever is in his contract. But as an "employee", if his employer decides that he's violated said contract (I can guarantee he had a morals clause) or even if they want to do it for shits and giggles, as long as none of the rights he is afforded to by the previously mentioned government protections are violated, they can have Bruce, Brock, and Bruno from security pack his shit in a box, and frogmarch the piece of shit to the nearest exit.

If he feels he's been wronged (and I'm sure he does, he's an old privileged white male) then he can by all means sue Fox and get laughed out of court. In fact IIRC, he tried to sue someone once and that already happened.

Go home, Martian.

Also, BillO is likely to get a year's salary as a part of his severance; twenty five million American dollars. So it's probably in his contract that they can just drop him like a hot potato.

I hope that he starts a Youtube channel called "Everyone's War on O'Reilly."

[Gandalf]

So let me get this straight... Unless found guilty in a civil or criminal court, all should be forgiven by his employer. In such a case, if he just keeps settling out of court does that mean he obviously should keep his job? I mean, he didn't get found guilty in court so we can't just assume that the guy who has settled out of court to the tune of $13 million has maybe been a shit to women. What is the truth?

Quit being obtuse. Bill O'Reilly is never going to be found guilty in court because if he thinks there's any sliver of a possibility he'll just settle out of court.

Has Bill Cosby even filled that criteria yet? Hell, OJ Simpson?

[Tribble]

God damn you are out of touch with reality. He's not a "defendant" at Fox, he's an "employee". He's only afforded the federal, state, and municipal rights afforded an "employee" along with whatever is in his contract. But as an "employee", if his employer decides that he's violated said contract (I can guarantee he had a morals clause) or even if they want to do it for shits and giggles, as long as none of the rights he is afforded to by the previously mentioned government protections are violated, they can have Bruce, Brock, and Bruno from security pack his shit in a box, and frogmarch the piece of shit to the nearest exit.

If he feels he's been wronged (and I'm sure he does, he's an old privileged white male) then he can by all means sue Fox and get laughed out of court. In fact IIRC, he tried to sue someone once and that already happened.

Go home, Martian.

I think it would be helpful if you actually took time to read all what I have posted. You might have noticed that:

A) I have already acknowledged what others pointed out in that O'Reilly's contract included a clause specifically stating that if new accusations came out and/or Fox became aware of additional ones, he would be fired. Perhaps that clause was part of the settlements?
B) I think that Jub's idea might be a decent one - until matters are concluded in cases like this one, it might be a good idea to suspend a person without pay.

So let me get this straight... Unless found guilty in a civil or criminal court, all should be forgiven by his employer.

Until an employer is able to prove to at least a civil law standard that the employee had violated their contract and/or some sort of law, absolutely. Though I agree that something like a suspension without pay might be required during the proceedings.

In such a case, if he just keeps settling out of court does that mean he obviously should keep his job?

Depending on what the conditions on the contract between the parties, what settlement conditions were and who was involved, then potentially yes.

I mean, he didn't get found guilty in court so we can't just assume that the guy who has settled out of court to the tune of $13 million has maybe been a shit to women.

We the public are free to feel whatever we want. I personally take the view of waiting until after proceedings until throwing stones, but that's up to you. Point being that the Court of Public Opinion is not the same thing as a relationship between an employer and an employee. And the Court of Public Opinion does not equal a court in law.

What is the truth?

Precisely. As far as I have been able to tell, we don't know the truth to any sort of reliable degree, and I am very loath to see someone get fired over accusations (though in O'Reilly's case his firing was apparently allowed as that was a specific part of his contract).

Quit being obtuse. Bill O'Reilly is never going to be found guilty in court because if he thinks there's any sliver of a possibility he'll just settle out of court.

In O'Reilly's case specifically, it has been pointed out that his contract included a clause which could get him fired over simple accusations.

Generally speaking it is also up to the complainant and/or the employer on whether or not to settle. And law enforcement agencies / prosecution should it be a criminal matter. Should someone decide to take it to trial, that's different.

And as I stated before, suspension without pay might be an acceptable middle ground.

Has Bill Cosby even filled that criteria yet?

I'm not sure, I haven't been following that case very closely. IIRC he has been criminally charged in addition to several civil lawsuits.

Hell, OJ Simpson?

OJ Simpson was found being responsible for "wrongful death" civilly, and IIRC he is probably spending the rest of his life in jail for a robbery conviction, so yes?

[Broomstick]

The settlements with former accusers wasn't "public opinion". They were actual legal settlements.

Which is exactly my point. What do we as the public know? What is the record in these proceedings? What were the reasons for the settlements, if any were given? At what stage of the proceedings were the settlements made? Was it done before a trial took place? During trial? After? What evidence was presented? Was it scrutinized? Were there any admissions of guilt / liability? I don't know how much detail is out there. We know that at least in one instance there was an alleged recording (was that actually proven?)

The public knows very little because those were not public proceedings, they occurred prior to any sort of trial or even formal criminal accusation, and likely non-disclosure agreements were part of the deal so we aren't going to know the details, or what may or may not have been admitted to.

We, the public, are not actually entitled to know any of that. That is between the employer and employees involved.

Look, the first time or two a major employee screws up the company may be willing to settle, but for damn sure there will be a clause in any sort of employment contract about moral conduct so if said employee continues to screw up the company can get rid of him or her.

There may well be solid evidence, but it's probably all locked up in non-disclosure agreements and settlements. Barring criminal charges, it's entirely within the purview of the employer to discipline or even fire a misbehaving employee. I'm assuming that's what happened here: O'Reilly's past transgressions were settled out of court, he was told to behave himself better in the future, he didn't, and now he's out.

My rambling is more directed towards the people who love go and get their pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers ready before there have have even been any formal proceedings.

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

[Tribble]

The public knows very little because those were not public proceedings, they occurred prior to any sort of trial or even formal criminal accusation, and likely non-disclosure agreements were part of the deal so we aren't going to know the details, or what may or may not have been admitted to.

We, the public, are not actually entitled to know any of that. That is between the employer and employees involved.

Look, the first time or two a major employee screws up the company may be willing to settle, but for damn sure there will be a clause in any sort of employment contract about moral conduct so if said employee continues to screw up the company can get rid of him or her.

Was Fox part of the proceedings? If so, were they the plaintiff or defendant? Or were they a third party?

If its in civil court I believe both the plaintiff and the defendants have to agree to keep things confidential, so its not simply a matter of O'Reilly signing off his own court cases.

There may well be solid evidence, but it's probably all locked up in non-disclosure agreements and settlements. Barring criminal charges, it's entirely within the purview of the employer to discipline or even fire a misbehaving employee. I'm assuming that's what happened here: O'Reilly's past transgressions were settled out of court, he was told to behave himself better in the future, he didn't, and now he's out.

Or there may not have been much evidence (apart from apparently a recording of a phone call) and the settlements were done simply because that was the cheapest and easiest option over fighting things on principle. Or it could be that every single accusation is 100% valid and he really should be criminally charged. We don't know. And I am a firm believer of assuming innocence until there has been some formal process to establish a degree of responsibility / guilt, no matter who that person is and what they were charged with. Controversial position to take in these times, apparently.

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

Is that the case in this instance?

In this instance it seems as though O'Reilly had a specific clause allowing for his immediate termination if future allegations occurred, and that said terms are likely legally binding.

[Gandalf]

My rambling is more directed towards the people who love go and get their pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers ready before there have have even been any formal proceedings.

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

Interestingly, nearly every contract I've read for talent like O'Reilly usually includes a big "out" for the company, usually involving a decent payout. Fox don't need disciplinary anything if they just want to wash their hands of him quicksmart.

[Tribble]

My rambling is more directed towards the people who love go and get their pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers ready before there have have even been any formal proceedings.

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

Interestingly, nearly every contract I've read for talent like O'Reilly usually includes a big "out" for the company, usually involving a decent payout. Fox don't need disciplinary anything if they just want to wash their hands of him quicksmart.

"We can fire you for any reason at any time" will probably become the defacto standard for most employees one day, with the "and with no compensation" clause for all but upper management of course.

[Broomstick]

The public knows very little because those were not public proceedings, they occurred prior to any sort of trial or even formal criminal accusation, and likely non-disclosure agreements were part of the deal so we aren't going to know the details, or what may or may not have been admitted to.

We, the public, are not actually entitled to know any of that. That is between the employer and employees involved.

Look, the first time or two a major employee screws up the company may be willing to settle, but for damn sure there will be a clause in any sort of employment contract about moral conduct so if said employee continues to screw up the company can get rid of him or her.

Was Fox part of the proceedings? If so, were they the plaintiff or defendant? Or were they a third party?

If its in civil court I believe both the plaintiff and the defendants have to agree to keep things confidential, so its not simply a matter of O'Reilly signing off his own court cases.

Er... why are you assuming a court was involved at any point?

[Tribble]

The public knows very little because those were not public proceedings, they occurred prior to any sort of trial or even formal criminal accusation, and likely non-disclosure agreements were part of the deal so we aren't going to know the details, or what may or may not have been admitted to.

We, the public, are not actually entitled to know any of that. That is between the employer and employees involved.

Look, the first time or two a major employee screws up the company may be willing to settle, but for damn sure there will be a clause in any sort of employment contract about moral conduct so if said employee continues to screw up the company can get rid of him or her.

Was Fox part of the proceedings? If so, were they the plaintiff or defendant? Or were they a third party?

If its in civil court I believe both the plaintiff and the defendants have to agree to keep things confidential, so its not simply a matter of O'Reilly signing off his own court cases.

Er... why are you assuming a court was involved at any point?

Were the settlements reached before a claim was even filed?

[Broomstick]

I don't know. Does anyone here know?

It's entirely possible that this was handled entirely internal to Fox involving HR and company lawyers.

I saw a very blatant, very extreme case of racial prejudice and employee maltreatment handled that way in corporate America once. The ex-employee notified the company of her intent to sue, HR did an internal investigation and found a decent sized number of witnesses that all were very clear a pattern of racial slurs, insults, and biased treatment had existed, realized that in fact the accused person was wrong and there was no way to win in court, and the company's own legal department approached the ex-employee's lawyer and negotiated a settlement without it going to court at all. Because there was no way in hell the company could win, so save the expense of court proceedings and go right to a monetary award, avoid publicity, and have a solid reason to fire the offending employee.

So... I don't know. Maybe the prior accusations were all handled in-house. Maybe they weren't. That should be something a person could discover if they wanted to do the research.

[bilateralrope]

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

Interestingly, nearly every contract I've read for talent like O'Reilly usually includes a big "out" for the company, usually involving a decent payout. Fox don't need disciplinary anything if they just want to wash their hands of him quicksmart.

"We can fire you for any reason at any time" will probably become the defacto standard for most employees one day, with the "and with no compensation" clause for all but upper management of course.

Isn't that known as 'at will employment' ?

[houser2112]

It isn't even a matter of morality or ethics clauses that may or may not be in his contract. Advertisers are pulling their ads. When shows can't sell ads, they get cancelled.

[Broomstick]

"We can fire you for any reason at any time" will probably become the defacto standard for most employees one day, with the "and with no compensation" clause for all but upper management of course.

Isn't that known as 'at will employment' ?

Yep. It's pretty much standard in the US at this time.

[Flagg]

God damn you are out of touch with reality. He's not a "defendant" at Fox, he's an "employee". He's only afforded the federal, state, and municipal rights afforded an "employee" along with whatever is in his contract. But as an "employee", if his employer decides that he's violated said contract (I can guarantee he had a morals clause) or even if they want to do it for shits and giggles, as long as none of the rights he is afforded to by the previously mentioned government protections are violated, they can have Bruce, Brock, and Bruno from security pack his shit in a box, and frogmarch the piece of shit to the nearest exit.

If he feels he's been wronged (and I'm sure he does, he's an old privileged white male) then he can by all means sue Fox and get laughed out of court. In fact IIRC, he tried to sue someone once and that already happened.

Go home, Martian.

I think it would be helpful if you actually took time to read all what I have posted. You might have noticed that:

A) I have already acknowledged what others pointed out in that O'Reilly's contract included a clause specifically stating that if new accusations came out and/or Fox became aware of additional ones, he would be fired. Perhaps that clause was part of the settlements?
B) I think that Jub's idea might be a decent one - until matters are concluded in cases like this one, it might be a good idea to suspend a person without pay.

So let me get this straight... Unless found guilty in a civil or criminal court, all should be forgiven by his employer.

Until an employer is able to prove to at least a civil law standard that the employee had violated their contract and/or some sort of law, absolutely. Though I agree that something like a suspension without pay might be required during the proceedings.

In such a case, if he just keeps settling out of court does that mean he obviously should keep his job?

Depending on what the conditions on the contract between the parties, what settlement conditions were and who was involved, then potentially yes.

I mean, he didn't get found guilty in court so we can't just assume that the guy who has settled out of court to the tune of $13 million has maybe been a shit to women.

We the public are free to feel whatever we want. I personally take the view of waiting until after proceedings until throwing stones, but that's up to you. Point being that the Court of Public Opinion is not the same thing as a relationship between an employer and an employee. And the Court of Public Opinion does not equal a court in law.

What is the truth?

Precisely. As far as I have been able to tell, we don't know the truth to any sort of reliable degree, and I am very loath to see someone get fired over accusations (though in O'Reilly's case his firing was apparently allowed as that was a specific part of his contract).

Quit being obtuse. Bill O'Reilly is never going to be found guilty in court because if he thinks there's any sliver of a possibility he'll just settle out of court.

In O'Reilly's case specifically, it has been pointed out that his contract included a clause which could get him fired over simple accusations.

Generally speaking it is also up to the complainant and/or the employer on whether or not to settle. And law enforcement agencies / prosecution should it be a criminal matter. Should someone decide to take it to trial, that's different.

And as I stated before, suspension without pay might be an acceptable middle ground.

Has Bill Cosby even filled that criteria yet?

I'm not sure, I haven't been following that case very closely. IIRC he has been criminally charged in addition to several civil lawsuits.

Hell, OJ Simpson?

OJ Simpson was found being responsible for "wrongful death" civilly, and IIRC he is probably spending the rest of his life in jail for a robbery conviction, so yes?

Are you just trolling for shits and giggles or are you really this fucking stupid and obtuse? You clearly don't understand the concept of private ownership of organizations and an employer/employee relationship.

Have you ever been in the actual job market, where you don't get a job by special Fraternity handshakes and rubbing your penises together, but submit resumes and fill out applications?

Or are you the lucky recipient of a vast inheritance?

Because anyone who has ever been employed in the actual job market is laughing at you for being so goddamned ignorant.

[Flagg]

The settlements with former accusers wasn't "public opinion". They were actual legal settlements.

Which is exactly my point. What do we as the public know? What is the record in these proceedings? What were the reasons for the settlements, if any were given? At what stage of the proceedings were the settlements made? Was it done before a trial took place? During trial? After? What evidence was presented? Was it scrutinized? Were there any admissions of guilt / liability? I don't know how much detail is out there. We know that at least in one instance there was an alleged recording (was that actually proven?)

The public knows very little because those were not public proceedings, they occurred prior to any sort of trial or even formal criminal accusation, and likely non-disclosure agreements were part of the deal so we aren't going to know the details, or what may or may not have been admitted to.

We, the public, are not actually entitled to know any of that. That is between the employer and employees involved.

Look, the first time or two a major employee screws up the company may be willing to settle, but for damn sure there will be a clause in any sort of employment contract about moral conduct so if said employee continues to screw up the company can get rid of him or her.

There may well be solid evidence, but it's probably all locked up in non-disclosure agreements and settlements. Barring criminal charges, it's entirely within the purview of the employer to discipline or even fire a misbehaving employee. I'm assuming that's what happened here: O'Reilly's past transgressions were settled out of court, he was told to behave himself better in the future, he didn't, and now he's out.

My rambling is more directed towards the people who love go and get their pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers ready before there have have even been any formal proceedings.

Employer disciplinary actions may not be a court of law but they can, in fact, be very formal and even legally binding.

It's all money, that's what Tribbles For Brains keeps ignoring to do his stupid tap dance of obtuseness and ignorance.

For the bagillionth time (not directed at you, Broom): His ratings for those not currently in nursing homes were pretty much drawing even with his competitors at a prime timeslot and 80 advertisers refused to buy ads during his show so ultimately it was a financial decision, as most things are when it comes to a mega corporations.

So Dribbles is saying that Newscorp should be forced to keep this toilet bug on air with shitty ratings, no money coming in at the 8pm PDT because there are no advertisers or that the corporations boycotting his show should be forced into buying ad time until he's convicted of something civil or criminal.

Which is not the dumbest thing I've seen lately, but it ranks.

[Flagg]

Interestingly, nearly every contract I've read for talent like O'Reilly usually includes a big "out" for the company, usually involving a decent payout. Fox don't need disciplinary anything if they just want to wash their hands of him quicksmart.

"We can fire you for any reason at any time" will probably become the defacto standard for most employees one day, with the "and with no compensation" clause for all but upper management of course.

Isn't that known as 'at will employment' ?

We call it by its Orwellian name: "Right to work" in the US and it is not the case in every state.

It basically means that as long as it does not violate federal, state, or municipal law, they can shitcan you for no other reason than that they don't like your deodorant. But then you get unemployment because it's considered "termination without cause". If they have a reason to fire you (usually 2 writeups then thrown in the gutter) then it's "termination with cause" and you don't get unemployment.

And the reason (and reason it exists) it's called "right to work" is because it means you "have a right to work" without joining the union because it's designed to destroy unions by allowing people to get all the union benefits without joining and paying, union dues.

[Flagg]

I don't know. Does anyone here know?

It's entirely possible that this was handled entirely internal to Fox involving HR and company lawyers.

I saw a very blatant, very extreme case of racial prejudice and employee maltreatment handled that way in corporate America once. The ex-employee notified the company of her intent to sue, HR did an internal investigation and found a decent sized number of witnesses that all were very clear a pattern of racial slurs, insults, and biased treatment had existed, realized that in fact the accused person was wrong and there was no way to win in court, and the company's own legal department approached the ex-employee's lawyer and negotiated a settlement without it going to court at all. Because there was no way in hell the company could win, so save the expense of court proceedings and go right to a monetary award, avoid publicity, and have a solid reason to fire the offending employee.

So... I don't know. Maybe the prior accusations were all handled in-house. Maybe they weren't. That should be something a person could discover if they wanted to do the research.

It never went to court, they just signed some papers and a check.

"Bill O'Reilly Falafel"

[Tribble]

Are you just trolling for shits and giggles or are you really this fucking stupid and obtuse? You clearly don't understand the concept of private ownership of organizations and an employer/employee relationship.

Have you ever been in the actual job market, where you don't get a job by special Fraternity handshakes and rubbing your penises together, but submit resumes and fill out applications?

Or are you the lucky recipient of a vast inheritance?

Because anyone who has ever been employed in the actual job market is laughing at you for being so goddamned ignorant.

It's all money, that's what Tribbles For Brains keeps ignoring to do his stupid tap dance of obtuseness and ignorance.

For the bagillionth time (not directed at you, Broom): His ratings for those not currently in nursing homes were pretty much drawing even with his competitors at a prime timeslot and 80 advertisers refused to buy ads during his show so ultimately it was a financial decision, as most things are when it comes to a mega corporations.

So Dribbles is saying that Newscorp should be forced to keep this toilet bug on air with shitty ratings, no money coming in at the 8pm PDT because there are no advertisers or that the corporations boycotting his show should be forced into buying ad time until he's convicted of something civil or criminal.

Which is not the dumbest thing I've seen lately, but it ranks.

I have already commented multiple times on O'Reilly's situation in particular and that his dismissal was legal. Please re-read my above posts.

We call it by its Orwellian name: "Right to work" in the US and it is not the case in every state.

It basically means that as long as it does not violate federal, state, or municipal law, they can shitcan you for no other reason than that they don't like your deodorant. But then you get unemployment because it's considered "termination without cause". If they have a reason to fire you (usually 2 writeups then thrown in the gutter) then it's "termination with cause" and you don't get unemployment.

And the reason (and reason it exists) it's called "right to work" is because it means you "have a right to work" without joining the union because it's designed to destroy unions by allowing people to get all the union benefits without joining and paying, union dues.

I have already given my opinion on "at will employment" in the USA but I feel the need to modify my statement as it appears to be even worse than what I initially thought it to be. Though I'm not an expert in U.S. law, apparently in many states not only can you be terminated immediately without cause, you are not given compensation either. This is quite different than in Canada, where a termination without clause nearly always requires some form of compensation and minimum notice period of dismissal. And can still be challenged as a wrongful dismissal (usually because the employer offers a package / notice period which is less than the legal minimum required). And yes, I am generally opposed to US model, for obvious reasons.

It never went to court, they just signed some papers and a check.

"Bill O'Reilly Falafel"

And this is where I have a problem (note that I am not debating O'reilly's employment status here). "People have accused someone of something, therefore that person must be guilty!" is not the kind of thing I support, even for someone I detest like O'Reilly. We do not know the details of the settlements, as far as I am aware. It's possible that he's entirely guilty... or that he's not. Or somewhere in-between (such as bth parties having a go at each other). You have labelled O'Reilly a "sexual predator". Not a trivial thing to accuse someone of being IMO. What evidence do you have to support this claim, apart from accusations which have not been tested in any formal proceedings, and settlements of which we have no knowledge of the details? Perhaps you are privy to information that I not aware of, nor have been able to find so far? Why do you feel I should support your position? It kind of goes against the fundamental idea of "innocent until proven guilty" (even if only to the 50% +1 required for civil litigation).

And if you feel that the rule of law does not work, what do you suggest? Do you suggest we disregard it for people we dislike, or people who are wealthy? What alternative are you proposing? Get the tar and feathers ready, and do justice the good ol' fashioned way via the court of public opinion?

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I fail so far to see why I should agree with them.

[Tribble]

Note that this is different then say Trump, who has openly acknowledged things such as his "pussy-grabber" comment as having actually happened. As far as I am aware O-Reilly has denied all allegations thus far.

[Flagg]

Wait, so you, who has never worked or has any real notion of how employment works in the US, are whining about things you have no actual knowledge of? And in the process are white knighting Bill fucking O'Reilly? What the hell, dude?