Have just read your article and her article back to back. Neither of you know if he’s an abuser or not - and with one incident in 80 years you have decided he’s a sexual predator. This author has at least provided context on meeting him and given a wider sociological explanation.

So, whilst it is true that neither of you KNOWS whether or not he’s an abuser, I find this argument the more compelling. I also hold by the general presumption of innocence and what he’s guilty of is asking an inappropriate question in front of the world’s media. It doesn’t seem like a master manipulator abuser in action.