TV host Paul O’Grady raps showbiz sex arrests ‘circus’

cloud493

TV host Paul O’Grady yesterday hit out at the number of showbiz stars arrested over sex claims, insisting it had become a farce.
O’Grady, 57, said the accusations against famous faces such as veteran Rolf Harris, 83, had turned into a “celebrity circus”.
The Lily Savage star said: “It’s not about the victim. It’s about ‘Look who has done it now. Look it’s another dirty old man’.
“The real villains are getting away with murder. Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one. Who else are they going to destroy from my childhood? Andy Pandy? Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men?”
He insisted cops should not name stars who are arrested. The comic said: “Whatever happened to being innocent until found guilty? It’s destroying their reputations.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4918834/paul-ogrady-raps-showbiz-sex-arrests-circus.html#ixzz2ShLEP5Jq

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

MagicMarker

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

Retarded post is retarded.

mconigol

Perhaps they should be given due process before being named and shamed, you know....on the off chance that they're innocent

Odysseus

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

Could we wait until they are found guilty before we name and shame them?

Niall558

I think Paul O'Grady was just covering his tracks....

Dancor

Expect Paul O'Grady to be arrested next.

padd b1975

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

squod

padd b1975 wrote: »

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

Shhhhhhhhh. You're on AH remember? PC liberals will have your guts for garters! (or garter belts)

Odysseus

padd b1975 wrote: »

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

How is his dress sense connected to his morality or even your morality?

MagicMarker

padd b1975 wrote: »

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

Yep, take it from the catholic church instead, they wear.... oh wait.

fishy fishy

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

have you not understood the original post?

FatherLen

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

padd b1975 wrote: »

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

the stupidity shown in this thread hurts my brain.

padd b1975

Odysseus wrote: »

How is his dress sense connected to his morality or even your morality?

Its my personal opinion that a guy in a dress loses a certain amount of gravitas when lecturing about ongoing criminal investigations.

Mountjoy Mugger

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

What a stupid, idiotic post. Especially after reading the extract from O'Grady. Deaf ears is an understatement.

jaffacakesyum

padd b1975 wrote: »

Its my personal opinion that a guy in a dress loses a certain amount of gravitas when lecturing about ongoing criminal investigations.

Because dressing as a woman is a crime?

Fashion police over here :pac:

Skid X

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

I totally agree

“The real villains are getting away with murder. Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one. Who else are they going to destroy from my childhood?

Someone should tell Paul O'Grady that Child Molesters ARE real villains. They are abhorrent scumbags who should rot in hell and if it means his childhood memories are upset then tough. He seems to think being a celebrity should give you some kind of immunity from justice - disgusting.

Artful_Badger

He has a point, whether they are found innocent or not they will be marred with this for the rest of their lives. Fair enough if they are guilty but we dont know that they are.

Havermeyer

padd b1975 wrote: »

Its my personal opinion that a guy in a dress loses a certain amount of gravitas when lecturing about ongoing criminal investigations.

Jesus H Christ, Rourke.

Don't judges wear robes and wigs, and stuff?

Artful_Badger

Skid X wrote: »

I totally agree



Someone should tell Paul O'Grady that Child Molesters ARE real villains. They are abhorrent scumbags who should rot in hell and if it means his childhood memories are upset then tough. He seems to think being a celebrity should give you some kind of immunity from justice - disgusting.

The thing is though it hasnt been proven that Rolf Harris molested anyone so in the eyes of the law and society he should not be seen as a child molester until its conclusively proven to be the case.

HeidiHeidi

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The thing is though it hasnt been proven that Rolf Harris molested anyone so in the eyes of the law and society he should not be seen as a child molester until its conclusively proven to be the case.

This.

He, and all the others who have been named before being even charged - never mind convicted - are ****ed for ever more if they turn out to be innocent of those allegations.

padd b1975

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Because dressing as a woman is a crime?

Of course its not.

But I would always take a guy in a suit more seriously on important matters than I would a guy in a skirt and high heels.

As I said earlier, just my personal opinion.

Fashion police over here :pac:

I am a lost cause when it comes to fashion.
No fashion police force on the planet could rescue me:o

Artful_Badger

padd b1975 wrote: »

Of course its not.

But I would always take a guy in a suit more seriously on important matters than I would a guy in a skirt and high heels.

Like this guy ?

Skid X

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The thing is though it hasnt been proven that Rolf Harris molested anyone so in the eyes of the law and society he should not be seen as a child molester until its conclusively proven to be the case.

That's not the point, though. Paul O'Grady states that "Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one". Who is he to pronounce that the Police shouldn't do their job and investigate suspects where there is evidence against them? No one is above the law.

Gorilla Rising

cloud493 wrote: »

They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

Skid X wrote: »

I totally agree



Someone should tell Paul O'Grady that Child Molesters ARE real villains. They are abhorrent scumbags who should rot in hell and if it means his childhood memories are upset then tough. He seems to think being a celebrity should give you some kind of immunity from justice - disgusting.

OP, why not respond to previous posts instead of blindly thanking those (or that one) which agrees with your idiotic opening post?

RainyDay

padd b1975 wrote: »

Its my personal opinion that a guy in a dress loses a certain amount of gravitas when lecturing about ongoing criminal investigations.

So you don't listen to this guy at all then?

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/03/21/1225843/287441-cardinal-sean-brady.jpg

murraykil

Brady looks so cute in his dress! Red really is his color!

padd b1975

nummnutts wrote: »

Jesus H Christ, Rourke.

Don't judges wear robes and wigs, and stuff?

They do, needlessly IMHO.

They have however studied long and hard to gain the qualifications to comment expertly on legal matters.

O'Grady/Savage, not so much.

Artful_Badger

Skid X wrote: »

That's not the point, though. Paul O'Grady states that "Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one". Who is he to pronounce that the Police shouldn't do their job and investigate suspects where there is evidence against them? No one is above the law.

Where is he saying the police shouldnt investigate it ? He's saying they shouldnt be paraded around in front of the world as villains and have their reputations ruined if they havent been convicted of anything.

blatantrereg

Never mind the allegations of child abuse. That guy dresses unconventionally!

Sigh.

Dravokivich

False 9 wrote: »

OP, why not respond to previous posts instead of blindly thanking those (or that one) which agrees with your idiotic opening post?

Because they didn't come here for a coherent discussion.

murraykil

I like this dress, it has a lovely shawl too, but I don't think he carries the look so well. I'll bet Paul O'Grady would kill in this outfit! The cute red shoes are so adorable!

cloud493

I just agree with what skid said. You wouldn't protect anyone else in the same situation. Just because their a celebrity doesn't mean they don't deserve to be named and shamed just as much as anyone. You can tell me how idiotic that post was all you like, but opinions opinions.

SEPT 23 1989

Showbiz Sex Circus

Skid X

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Where is he saying the police shouldnt investigate it ? He's saying they shouldnt be paraded around in front of the world as villains and have their reputations ruined if they havent been convicted of anything.

No he isn't. Either Paul O'Grady considers child abusers are not 'real villains' or he is implying that those arrested are not guilty and the Police should not be investigating them.

“The real villains are getting away with murder. Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one. Who else are they going to destroy from my childhood? Andy Pandy? Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men?”

cloud493

Right. Its a case of Paul o'Grady implying they didn't do anything at all, therefore shouldn't be named. When in any other other situation that didn't involve a celebrity, they would.

Artful_Badger

cloud493 wrote: »

I just agree with what skid said. You wouldn't protect anyone else in the same situation. Just because their a celebrity doesn't mean they don't deserve to be named and shamed just as much as anyone. You can tell me how idiotic that post was all you like, but opinions opinions.

Its not about protecting them its about waiting until you know what they did before destroying their lives and reputations. You cant name and shame someone when you dont know if they did anything. There is a reason we have a justice system ffs, its to establish if people are guilty of the crimes they are accused of. Seems a lot of people would rather ignore that whole thing and just hang people based on the accusations themselves.

Dravokivich

cloud493 wrote: »

I just agree with what skid said. You wouldn't protect anyone else in the same situation. Just because their a celebrity doesn't mean they don't deserve to be named and shamed just as much as anyone. You can tell me how idiotic that post was all you like, but opinions opinions.

No-one deserves to be unjustly named and shamed prior to conviction, as if they had actually abused someone in such a manner.

No-one pays attention to any further stories stating that additional investigation or the courts found the suspect innocent.

It's always going to be accused rapist/molester from here on in. And that has had catastrophic affects for quite a few people before. Many men have been wrongfully accused of rape and molestation, some even put away for it only for the accuser to admit at a later stage they made the whole thing up.

cloud493

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its not about protecting them its about waiting until you know what they did before destroying their lives and reputations. You cant name and shame someone when you dont know if they did anything. There is a reason we have a justice system ffs, its to establish if people are guilty of the crimes they are accused of. Seems a lot of people would rather ignore that whole thing and just hang people based on the accusations themselves.

But thats the why it works. The fact that they're 'celebrities' doesn't mean they shouldn't be named. Its not a flawless system, clearly. But they've been accused, they've been named, same as everyone else.

So OP, a hypothetical one for you.....

If I pop into the Garda barracks and tell them I was sexually assaulted by you 20+ years ago, they'll in turn call you into the barracks to question you about my allegations. These allegations are currently under investigation.

By your own train of thought above, the rest of the posters on this thread (and anywhere else in the world) have every right to your full name and to brandish you a scumbag even though you and I know that the allegations are untrue. Is that correct?

Artful_Badger

Skid X wrote: »

No he isn't. Either Paul O'Grady considers child abusers are not 'real villains' or he is implying that those arrested are not guilty and the Police should not be investigating them.

Thats in relation to the media attention and the "Who have they got now?" sort of entertainment drawn out of it. Its not about the police. His point in relation to the police was that the cops shouldnt name them when arrested because of the media frenzy.

cloud493

Well I'm only 20 years old. So a tad unlikely.
If I'm accused of something, the law says the Garda could release my name. There you go. Thats not to say I'd be happy about it. But its equal for everyone, regardless of who I am or they are.

Dravokivich

cloud493 wrote: »

Well I'm only 20 years old. So a tad unlikely.
If I'm accused of something, the law says the Garda could release my name. There you go. Thats not to say I'd be happy about it. But its equal for everyone, regardless of who I am or they are.

There's anonymity with sexual assault charges.

cloud493

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Thats in relation to the media attention and the "Who have they got now?" sort of entertainment drawn out of it. Its not about the police. His point in relation to the police was that the cops shouldnt name them when arrested because of the media frenzy.

But they'd name anyone else. Unless they were under age or what have you. Why should they be treated any differently?

Artful_Badger

cloud493 wrote: »

But thats the why it works. The fact that they're 'celebrities' doesn't mean they shouldn't be named. Its not a flawless system, clearly. But they've been accused, they've been named, same as everyone else.

The fact they are celebrities means it draws a lot more attention and their reputations will suffer far far greater because of it. If it was you or me we wouldnt be making the front page and have the entire world calling us child molesters.

The police dont name to shame either, just report arrests. But in this case it is naming and shaming because of the media attention and the whole Saville thing.

Odysseus

padd b1975 wrote: »

Of course its not.

But I would always take a guy in a suit more seriously on important matters than I would a guy in a skirt and high heels.

As I said earlier, just my personal opinion.
I am a lost cause when it comes to fashion.
No fashion police force on the planet could rescue me:o

What if he wore a suit when he made this comment?

He no longer does his drag act does he?

Aidric

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

This.

He, and all the others who have been named before being even charged - never mind convicted - are ****ed for ever more if they turn out to be innocent of those allegations.

Indeed. Mud sticks.

cloud493

cloud493 wrote: »

Well I'm only 20 years old. So a tad unlikely.
If I'm accused of something, the law says the Garda could release my name. There you go. Thats not to say I'd be happy about it. But its equal for everyone, regardless of who I am or they are.

But Jimmy Tarbuck and many other celebs have not been charged they have been questioned.

Questioning a person does not equal the guilt of that person.

krudler

padd b1975 wrote: »

I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

What's his dress sense got to do with anything? he's openly gay and used to do a drag act, big deal.

cloud493

Doesn't mean their automatically innocent either. Doesn't mean Paul O'Grady can shout his mouth implying all his buddies are innocent.

Aidric

Has Mr Blobby been interviewed as part of these investigations?

Skid X

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Thats in relation to the media attention and the "Who have they got now?" sort of entertainment drawn out of it. Its not about the police. His point in relation to the police was that the cops shouldnt name them when arrested because of the media frenzy.

I disagree.

Why tell a national newspaper "The real villains are getting away with murder. Half of them I don’t believe — Rolf Harris for one."? He should let the police do their job rather than prejudging the innocence or otherwise of the suspects, based on their reputation alone.