Referring to the CITV anniversary programme that was broadcast over Christmas, one said:

"...in among the presenters and weans [children] they had Matthew Kelly, who was grinning like mad at these wee weans whilst making suggestive remarks at the presenters..."

I do not know of any such incident, but I doubt very much this would happen on national television. I can only guess that nothing more than mild flirting would have been had between himself and any female presenters.

"He's always seemed a bit twisted to me, but then so do most TV presenters."

This begs justification. However, with the newsgroup in question being a social group for students, I presume that any challenge put forward to these people would be generally interpreted as active backing for Matthew Kelly, active backing certainly not being what I would intend. I would also be told to lighten up.

Rather, I wish that people would read the news articles, take them with a pinch of salt (especially if printed in a tabloid), and accept that without knowing the same facts as a jury would, it is wrong to draw conclusions on what a person has or has not done. It's common sense. Nonetheless, cries of "There's no smoke without fire", the always idiotic "He looks like a paedophile", and the ignorance-induced "I think he's guilty" will be heard all over the country.

Should I lighten up? Or am I justly angry that so many people don't care for the facts, most of which they WON'T EVER KNOW OF, and that they draw conclusions on how a person looks, how they smile at children on national television where only a fool would leer at pre-pubescents, and that suddenly, on the breaking of a news story, a man who has always been seen as clean-cut by the vast majority of television viewers is, on the contrary, declared as always having seemed to be a little twisted.

Isn't this strange?