That article is horrendous and damning but, again, is from many years ago (it refers to him as 47 when he is now 60
Piscivorus, yes I am aware that, I did qualify that it was a response to his autobiography, but fair enough, appreciate not everyone would know when that was published.
I understand that people can mellow, change and can be rehabilitated. I also realize that sometimes people drink too much and their behaviour is adversely affected by that only if and when they drink i.e. can be controlled, I'm not denying that. I am though, also a believer in character traits which probably linger, even if they're kept in check.
It's not only a fashionable response to decry him years after his career high either. Some much older relatives had tickets to see him perform back in the day and invited us, we declined as even then he wasn't to our taste.
I'm afraid I don't see charitable works as a trade off for all the negative traits and activities in anyone, but I can see how the publicity and the avuncular uncle performance swayed some people who are less aware of the more distant past.
What I and others have flagged up though is information to back up why some hold such strong opinions against him, while people who've only known of him more recently find such strength of feeling hard to understand.