I guess that makes it perfectly fine then.
No, it means that no one was accusing him of anything that was a firable offense, and he wasn't being falsely accused of any crimes. As such, the main reason he got fired seems to be because his HR department jumped the gun. If you had taken the time to finish that sentence
, you'd see me saying that he should more be going after his HR department for unjust dismissal.
If they actually had a few people saying he'd done it then it would have been a really really easy case to defend. Phone up a couple of them and job done. Proof that they were honestly relaying the best information they had. Unfortunately those people didn't materialise.
That still wouldn't have been grounds. They would have had to prove that those
accusations were accurate as well. Basically, Canada is much less friendly to call-out culture.
[Rather tiresome ad hominem]
Are you just trolling, then? I pointed out that the female librarians were pretty blatantly doing a court-ordered apology, rather than the "lolz we were just joking" you painted it as, and your response is "Kryten's totes a pedo?" Do you have no potential rebuttal
beyond desparate, frenzied ad hominem? Nevermind the rather obvious moving of the goalposts from "legal responsibility" to "moral responsibility".
But anyway, the story isn't that unusual, it was the fanbases response of "he should have said he did it even if he didn't". Poeple aren't usually so direct.
Want to provide any sort of link that demonstrates this as an official position held by someone who matters, and not
the normal sort of brainless bile we see from "both sides" in every youtube comment thread? Or are you just going to call me names again and laugh to yourself about how witty you are?
EDIT: I've actually found the post you were quoting. It's from an anonymous poster in a comments thread, claiming that "the truth is a political construct and not a factual one", and elsewhere claims that someone explaining that they were a victim of sexual abuse can't possibly be telling the truth if they claim that it matters whether Murphy was innocent, and that it is impossible for Murphy, or any man, to be simply innocent of abuse -- they must either admit to sexual abuse, or be considered an sexual abuser. Finally, that asking the witnesses to show up in court is "re-victimizing them", and that all the legal system needs is to know that these witnesses allegedly exist. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a non-troll poster.
Oh, and that this is the only thing they've ever commented on with that account, apparently.
As for the actual article
, it says quite a bit different than you did -- that Mr. Murphy was not fired, but let go at the end of an already existing contract (possibly explaining why Rabey found it ridiculous that he claimed she had ruined his career), that they admitted that they were wrong
in their beliefs, not that they had been deliberately misleading people, and that they were
responding to (and publicizing) existing complaints about Murphy.
In other words, the facts of the case were that they were too loud about getting on a bandwagon without doing due diligence. Nothing admirable, and they absolutely should apologize for it! But not anything like the "malicious feminists set out to falsely accuse a man of sexual abuse and ruin his life" that you initially described it as.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.