nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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!