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
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Not when his is potentially much more damaging than mine. I am a voice among millions on the internet, talking ****e people will have forgotten about by next week. He has more influence.


  • Options
    #63
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Am I the only one disappointed by the thread title? I was expecting a video of him beside a boombox, wearing a baseball cap backwards going: "My name is O'Grady & I'm here to say, There's too much celeb sex in the news today".


  • Options
    #64
    V_Moth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭V_Moth


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Showbiz Sex Circus

    I thought that place closed back in the 80's? Man, the memories....


  • Options
    #65
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    cloud493 wrote: »
    Not when his is potentially much more damaging than mine. I am a voice among millions on the internet, talking ****e people will have forgotten about by next week. He has more influence.

    Whats wrong with his opinion, seems to me all he has said is he believes in the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Hardly a dangerous idea to be promoting.


  • Options
    #66
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

    Are you saying transvestites are somehow immoral?

    Besides, O'Grady 'retired' Lily Savage circa 2004.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    No he's implying they're all innocent and this is trivial compared to the 'real villains'


  • Options
    #68
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    cloud493 wrote: »
    No he's implying they're all innocent and this is trivial compared to the 'real villains'

    No he's not.


  • Options
    #69
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    In your opinion.


  • Options
    #70
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Yep, it seems like a very valid complaint to me.

    Seems like there should be a gag order on the media which prevents them from releasing any names or identifying information until someone has been formally charged with a crime.

    Look at it this way;

    You have a friend, great guy, you know him well and you trust him. He's good with kids, very popular.

    You find out that he's been brought in for questioning in relation to allegations of child molestation after his name is printed in the paper.

    And that's it. Nothing ever comes of it, he's never charged with anything, there's no evidence he ever did anything wrong.

    Would you leave your 8 year old daughter with him?

    Most people wouldn't. "Innocent until proven guilty" is quite contrary to our natural tendency to believe that there's no smoke without fire and once an allegation is made, a person is forever stamped with doubt about whether they did it.

    This is why it's wrong that the media name people brought in for questioning, especially when it comes to sexual crimes.


  • Options
    #71
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    cloud493 wrote: »
    No he's implying they're all innocent and this is trivial compared to the 'real villains'

    He's naming three more suspects actually.....
    Andy Pandy? Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men


    I'm hoping someone rats out Bosco next. That little red b*stard, too good to be true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Remmy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Remmy


    I know rappers generally like edgy material but he should stick with something more mainstream like money,cash,hoes starting off.


  • Options
    #73
    dj1980
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭dj1980


    I have to agree with him and I've been saying it to friends for a while now.

    IF they are found guilty, then parade them around for society to be aware of but IF they are found NOT guilty then innocent people have had their names tarnished and dragged through the gutter.


  • Options
    #74
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    I have to agree with Paul O'Grady, and there's been a huge increase in the number of alleged victims since a lawyer started representing Savilles victims in a case for compensation. There's also a world of difference between a person having consensual sex with a minor whom they believed to be of legal age and rape. We don't hear many details of what has been alleged to have been done either so it's mostly spectulation.

    I can understand that there would be genuine victims who would have sincere reasons for not coming forward sooner but this is just ridiculous. I can't believe anyone who didn't report it decades ago but can then sell their story to a tabloid. People shouldn't be named until they have been convicted of a crime. Whats happening is trial by media and its just salacious entertainment at this point.


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Of course their name shouldn't be announced to the media until there is solid evidence against them or if they have been found guilty. If Rolf Harris turns out to be completely and utterly innocent, then that's.. what.. four decades worth of a career almost entirely ruined because of this. There's no coming back from that, as there would be no coming back from a rape allegation. A normal person's name wouldn't be announced to the press over allegations, would they? Famous people deserve the same as well.

    Once all of this starts cooling down, there's probably going to be some serious questions raised over the police and the media's handling of this whole affair. O' Grady is right, the whole thing has become a circus.


  • Options
    #76
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    cloud493 wrote: »
    Not when his is potentially much more damaging than mine. I am a voice among millions on the internet, talking ****e people will have forgotten about by next week. He has more influence.

    Oh so he should be silenced because the media will pick it up but no issue with police naming suspects who will be shamed when the media pick it up ? I see.


  • Options
    #77
    blade1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭blade1


    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.
    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Like this guy ?

    No this guy
    http://i.pgu.me/da7TZTfQ_original.jpg


  • Options
    #78
    DamoKen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭DamoKen


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

    Worked wonders for this poor guy, his face says it all.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-sex-assault-anonymity-should-be-a-right-230214.html


  • Options
    #79
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


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

    Now focus on the bit about being innocent until proven guilty and vent again...go on. Try it


  • Options
    #80
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.

    Like priests?


  • Options
    #81
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    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

    You do know that its pretend.? An act? Entertainment?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    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.

    Where did he do that, other than inside your head?


  • Options
    #83
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I for one won't be taking any lessons in morality from a guy who dresses up in womens clothes.


    Damn right. We all know the chaos cross dressers have left in their wake throughout history.


  • Options
    #84
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    If Paul O'Grady and/or Rolf Harris are paedos, I'm going to go ahead and kill myself


  • Options
    #85
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    I guess Stuart Halls admission of guilt is the exception to O'Grady's rule .


  • Options
    #86
    dj1980
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭dj1980


    DamoKen wrote: »
    Worked wonders for this poor guy, his face says it all.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-cleared-of-sex-assault-anonymity-should-be-a-right-230214.html

    That's so depressing. Imagine the nightmare of going through that knowing you're innocent and strangers calling you a scumbag.


  • Options
    #87
    RossFixxxed
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭RossFixxxed


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

    Wow congratulations, that is absolutely staggeringly stupid. I'd applaud but I'm afraid the scary noises would make you bolt back into your hole in the earth where common sense cannot reach.


  • Options
    #88
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,393 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    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.

    Why can't he imply they're innocent when others are already assuming a guilty verdict before a trial has even taken place? It's also been pointed out that some have only been brought in for questioning and they're already being judged by the public.

    I think these things need to be kept out of the gossip pages as much as possible. This isn't just to protect the accused. I'm pretty sure someone who has been a victim will get pretty distressed when the crime becomes front page news. Even if the victim's name isn't published, that doesn't make it all good. Fear of that kind of exposure is part of the reason so much doesn't get reported in the first place.


  • Options
    #89
    Mr Tibbs
    Registered Users Posts: 420 ✭✭Mr Tibbs


    What's the betting Paul O'grady will be hauled in shortly, remember Rolf Harris in New Zealand.


  • Options
    #90
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


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

    He's talking about people who have not yet been found guilty. And he's absolutely, 100% totally and completely right. Nobody should suffer any consequences for an alleged offense, only for a guilty verdict. Simple as that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.

    Actually it does. In a democratic society, you are innocent unless and until a jury of your peers states otherwise. Simple as. No guilty verdict from a jury = innocent person.


Advertisement