That's about that then...
Seems different from the other cases: the witnesses were believable (unlike say Gambo's case) but the magistrates couldn't be sure Fox's behaviour crossed the line into criminality. He took a few liberties (he admits to simulating sex behind a woman's back) but cannot be proven to have been a serial groper.
Conversely, I would think that financially and commercially, Fox is pretty well a ruined man, which the verdict cannot redress, especially given the magistrates' equivocations.
Seems different from the other cases: the witnesses were believable (unlike say Gambo's case) but the magistrates couldn't be sure Fox's behaviour crossed the line into criminality. He took a few liberties (he admits to simulating sex behind a woman's back) but cannot be proven to have been a serial groper.
Conversely, I would think that financially and commercially, Fox is pretty well a ruined man, which the verdict cannot redress, especially given the magistrates' equivocations.
Comment