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

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?

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.

cloud493

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.

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.

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

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

cloud493

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

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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.

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".

V_Moth

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Showbiz Sex Circus

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

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.

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.

cloud493

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

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.

cloud493

In your opinion.

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.

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.

Remmy

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

BraziliaNZ

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

Latchy

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr Tibbs

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

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.

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.

Liamario

They shouldn't be named until they are found guilty. Also, even if they are found not guilty, the public will always see them as guilty; that whole- he must have done something mentality.
As soon as they were charged, their careers were over.

bacon n eggs

ken barlow stuck up for kevin Webster too....hmmm and yes I know not real names.

CdeC

I agree, it's not fair.

If someone labelled you a paedophile and then afterwards you were proven innocent, people will 99% believe it but they'll still think "you were that guy accused of touching kids" when they see you.

Noone should be publicly named until it is proven that they have done it.

OneArt

mconigol wrote: »

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

This strikes me as a witch-hunter's attitude.

KenSwee

I agree with Paul Grady. Guilty until proven innocent. It's all about mass media short sharp news shocks hitting the news channels as fast as possible, without a concern for the aftermath.There will come a day when the news will be fact, weather it's true or not.

Latchy

KenSwee wrote: »

.There will come a day when the news will be fact, weather it's true or not.

That day arrived long ago ...it's called Fox ,Sky and CNN

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He's talking about people who have not yet been found guilty....

That wording suggests inevitability!

As does "innocent until proven guilty". I'd prefer "innocent unless proven guilty".

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That wording suggests inevitability!

As does "innocent until proven guilty". I'd prefer "innocent unless proven guilty".

That was absolutely not my intention, apologies if it came across like that. And indeed, during these debates on sexual allegations I would usually say "unless and until".

The problem is that we're barraged with lobby groups complaining that the conviction rate for sexual offenses is too low. Regardless of whether this is true, what this effectively translates to is stating "a lot of the people not proven guilty are still actually guilty", and "we should change the burden of proof so that you can still convict even with reasonable doubt".

It's my view that this barrage of media criticism only adds to the "accusation = social shunning" climate we live in, which ironically makes a lot of people far less sympathetic to such allegations.

Just out of interest, as a general opinion, do people think it's better to punish an innocent person wrongly than to let a guilty person go free wrongly?

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That was absolutely not my intention, apologies if it came across like that....

I didn't for a moment think that you intended it that way. I picked up on it because it looked like a lapse in expression of the very type you were arguing against - rather ironic.

But I was not being a grammar (or usage) nazi: I was trying to emphasise how easily one slides from noting an accusation to making a presumption of guilt. The line is worryingly thin.

Freddy Smelly

BBC is starting to stand for Bastards Buggering Children