Boards

but it feels like barely a day passes without another super high profile arrest

We've had a few complaints.

don't you?

Even those you do not like

Guilty conscience?

I assume a lot more celebrities will be arrested in the next few weeks - obviously how many of them end up being charged remains to be seen.

I'm assuming it's charges of a nonce-sense, since the folk mentioned in the article.

my housemates never do. when i was in new york they just didn't get touched

it's just like, a bit of a headfuck that there was so much of it going on

innocent or not

i'd have to think about it

I constantly see his wife struggling with massive wheelie bins.
One time I saw him sitting in the car all nice and toasty as his wife scraped all the ice from the windows. In many ways he's my hero.

I'm too nice a guy to do it though
:)

Would an innocent man hounded by media attention and false conclusions invoke any sympathy in you?

This is a post-Leveson world we live it now.

Is that an offence in itself - helping them cover it up to maintain a good public persona? Either that or he touched some kids, who knows.

:(

rather than what he's done. About time too.

oh righteous one.

photos or whatnot

which would be an offence in itself

it is a case of him having committed sex offences himself, or harbouring information on people that have. He would surely make a DLT-style statement asap along the lines of ''I didnt have nothin to do with no kids''.

on youtube for star suckers footage of him boasting about protecting paedos...

He was on there boasting 'I know everything. You wouldn't believe which celebs like to knock around with underage girls.' Loads of shit like that. So that will be awkward when they play it back to him in the interview room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc6IT6ku-4M

Apols.

let's look at that

Savile - masses of evidence, not tested in court. Never will be.
Presumption of guilt? Probably

Gary Glitter - Already a convicted paedophile

everyone else - innocent until proven guilty as far as I can tell

Shit just gets murkier by the day

Savile will never be convicted but to his victims that doesn't make him innocent

which surely implies that he is under suspicion of committing those offences himself, rather than having any knowledge of, or covering up, somebody else's, no?

seems rather that some of the waters are beginning to be unmuddied (or appear that way for the moment)

- the kind of stuff that might be used as blackmail of a client for example - is a sexual offence

are aliens guilty?

because I'm arguing from a hypothetical standpoint

are you really going to make that parallel?

interesting

(is speculation libelous?

)

Just a counter to your 'guilt does not need to be proved in the same way' argument. Just because someone feels wronged does not confirm guilt.

Presumed guilt by anyone is a dangerous precedent however emotive a subject ie Max Clifford.

but I reckon Tony Blackburn

made me wonder if he is accused of doing stuff, or covering stuff up (which is a sex offence in itself I guess, assisting an offender). Either way he is definitely accused of something - otherwise they would make it clear he is just "helping with enquiries".

I just don't see it, myself.

(although maybe in the course of ''protecting'' his clients he's also dabbled with dodgy things, who knows)

and Cowell has therefore made X million from that.

Not a nudge nudge wink wink fingers in under aged pies. (hmmm, that wasn't supposed to sound quite so wrong...)

OH THOSE ADVERTS ARE SO SIDE-SPLITTINGLY FUNNY

but it's then surely disingenuous for you to ask if someone is really going to make that alien abduction parallel given you must have known what it was they were describing- the mental process of an uninvolved party without supporting evidence of any argument, not the severity of the situation.

which is a tautology

And thus everyone who believes they've been abducted by them is generally assumed to be a delusional crackpot ... It seemed like an extremely dangerous parallel

Plus my argument is not based on people who THINK they've been raped, (they are deliberately not part of my argument) it's centered on people who HAVE been raped... for those people surely exist

The parallel was not one that sought to draw comparisons between the veracity of people's experiences. That seemed fairly clear to me.

Personally, I'd be inclined to believe any woman, man or child who said (I'll avoid saying 'claimed' here, because the extension of your logic is that it isn't a claim and that makes talking about it really awkward and hopefully demonstrates what I'm attempting to say) they had been the victim of a rape, and would most certainly react to them as a victim without prosecution or corroborating evidence. But I'm a person, not a legal system.

it's kind of interesting that a man who, essentially, regulated the flow of exposes should be toppled in the same week that a bunch of newspaper editors got together to decide, collectively, to try to develop a veneer of decency.

they are self-regulating and they thus suddenly have less need of his kind of de facto regulation...

bets on a PR agency shopping him to the cops?

I would have hoped it was clear what I was getting at, but if not, I hope I have clarified.

i mean he may be innocent of this, certainly is until proven guilty, but he has contributed massively to the trend of growing media attention, positively courted it for his clients, so it is rather a delicious irony

i have no evidence to comment either way.
obviously.

probably is