Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Showbiz Sex Circus


  • Options
    #34
    Skid X
    Registered Users Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭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?”


  • Options
    #35
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Options
    #40
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #46
    Aidric
    Registered Users Posts: 13,589 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #48
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


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


  • Options
    #50
    Aidric
    Registered Users Posts: 13,589 ✭✭✭✭Aidric


    Has Mr Blobby been interviewed as part of these investigations?


  • Options
    #51
    Skid X
    Registered Users Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    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.

    Yes, but you have already pre-judged them have you not? Why else would you call them scumbags? Surely you should wait until conviction until you deem them such?


  • Options
    #53
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    In the case of protecting children, and in the light of the extent of Jimmy Savvile's crimes, and other people, yes, I have pre judged. Maybe I'm ever so slightly biased on the topic, but yes.


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cloud493 wrote: »
    Doesn't mean their automatically innocent either. Doesn't mean Paul O'Grady can shout his mouth implying all his buddies are innocent.

    Well in the eyes of the law it does. Innocent until proven guilty.


  • Options
    #55
    Odysseus
    Registered Users Posts: 6,754 ✭✭✭Odysseus


    cloud493 wrote: »
    In the case of protecting children, and in the light of the extent of Jimmy Savvile's crimes, and other people, yes, I have pre judged. Maybe I'm ever so slightly biased on the topic, but yes.

    Well thank god you are not part of the legal system, that is all I can say. BTW slighty is a bit of an overstatement.


  • Options
    #56
    HeidiHeidi
    Registered Users Posts: 29,036 ✭✭✭✭HeidiHeidi


    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.

    There's meant to be anonymity on both sides of sexual cases for this very reason. So that neither side's reputation is permanently trashed without proof.

    Clearly that system falls down a lot of the time, but that's the way it's meant to be.

    And rightly so.

    I cannot see how you could think that it's right to publish any name of an accused - who is just that, accused - without the tiniest shred of proof that that accusation will stand up :confused:

    And saying that it's all in the name of the poor children/victims is not an answer.


  • Options
    #57
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Opinions are opinions. My opinion means nothing in the long run, hence I am entitled to it.


  • Options
    #58
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    cloud493 wrote: »
    They don't wanna be named and shamed, they probably shouldn't molest children or people unable to defend themselves. Scumbags.

    You have proof any of those named did actually molest children?, most of them have been questioned , not even charged never mind convicted.
    Perhaps we should save the moral outrage until we know all the facts in each case.


  • Options
    #59
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    RainyDay wrote: »
    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

    Edna worth listening to so?

    http://www.thepotato.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/thatcher.jpg


  • Options
    #60
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    cloud493 wrote: »
    In the case of protecting children, and in the light of the extent of Jimmy Savvile's crimes, and other people, yes, I have pre judged. Maybe I'm ever so slightly biased on the topic, but yes.

    If ever there was an avert for taking the power to decide guilt and innocence away from lay juries, then post is it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    cloud493 wrote: »
    Opinions are opinions. My opinion means nothing in the long run, hence I am entitled to it.

    But O'Grady isnt entitled to his no ?


Advertisement