|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 10, 2022 13:22:29 GMT
Can't say I am an avid watcher of I'm a celebrity Vinny As a general rule, once someone has served their sentence for any offence, would you say they should then be free to get on with their lives or should they for ever hide from sight with an "unclean" sign around their neck? It depends on what they have done. 'falsely Imprisoning a male escort' sounds a bit odd |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 10, 2022 13:25:21 GMT
That was 15 years ago! Very old news. Well most of them who watch weren't even born then, even I don't remember this to be honest, so it's all FRESH, people can get a insight in to his split personality, making out he's all sweet and innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 10, 2022 19:57:26 GMT
I can’t always be here to answer questions 24/7 Squeezed especially questions as inane as yours. Did you notice the phrase “as a general rule” in my post and ponder what it was there for? Did it occur to you that real life is rarely “ black or white” or “goodies or baddies”. As a result it requires balancing competing rights and priorities. While ex-offenders should in general be free having served their sentences to get on with their lives without being punished again for their crimes by ongoing restrictions, there will be times when that is not appropriate. In particular it may with some offenders be necessary to restrict what they are able to do to protect children and vulnerable adults who are less able to protect themselves. It is right therefore in most circumstances that ex sex offenders are not permitted to work in positions of trust in schools as the risks to children would be too high. So in your rather silly example (is Rolf Harris even still alive?), it would not be right for him to perform with or to children in most perhaps all circumstances as the risk to children is too high. There is little or no corresponding risk to children or vulnerable adults in Boy George appearing in a crap ITV reality show given the nature of his offense. I would have thought this was blindingly obvious and frankly am surprised it needed to be spelled out to you.
Well done, dapster - there's hope for you yet. Of course most people agree with the above but, as you're a well-known criminal sympathiser, I think it reasonable to question where exactly you draw the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 10, 2022 20:03:47 GMT
Can't say I am an avid watcher of I'm a celebrity Vinny As a general rule, once someone has served their sentence for any offence, would you say they should then be free to get on with their lives or should they for ever hide from sight with an "unclean" sign around their neck? It depends on what they have done. 'falsely Imprisoning a male escort' sounds a bit odd
Whereas "Handcuffing a rentboy to a radiator" probably sounds a bit crude.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 10, 2022 22:47:16 GMT
Can't say I am an avid watcher of I'm a celebrity Vinny As a general rule, once someone has served their sentence for any offence, would you say they should then be free to get on with their lives or should they for ever hide from sight with an "unclean" sign around their neck? May I stick my 2p worth in ? I say that depends on the crime and their attitude. Back in 2002 I received a letter addressed to me as director of my then ltdco. I am deeply ashamed I did not respond to it. It came from a man about to finish his sentence of imprisonment in a prison whose name I do not now remember but which at the time was quite recognisable. Let us say for the sake of argument it was Barlinnie. Because it was recognisable to me as one where there had been problems in the past Anyway This letter was from a man finishing a sentence. He said his parole officer suggested he write to small businesses in my area. He was coming to live with relatives in the area, far from his old address, in hope of making a fresh start and he was looking for a company willing to take a chance giving him a job. At the time it could not have arrived at a worse moment. For various reasons I won’t bother with because they’ll divert the point of this post, my ltdco was on the rocks and I’d just served companies house with a notice to dissolve. So I wasn’t in a position to offer the guy a job. My shame is that it would have been a five minute job and a 2nd class stamp to write a short letter stating the fact that I had just dissolved the company so could not help but wished him well. Because later I came to realise what it took to write that letter and I think such a person deserved a chance of talking with someone about their chances …. But I was so wrapped up in the shit I was in I was too tunnel visioned to see what was going on around me. That’s one end of the see saw. Here is the other. A year after my daughter was raped by an Islamic with AIDS who ran off to India and died of it, she and the daughter she carried to term from the rape were lucky not to be burned alive in their social housing maisonette after a comehead high on shit broke into the upstairs flat, raped, and then butchered the right and a half month pregnant woman living there, making sure he sliced her open and butchered the near term child she was carrying. As his trial approached his cell mate in the remand block reported him for plotting the murder of all the witnesses to his crime, my daughter included. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 11, 2022 8:46:16 GMT
Boy George and Charlene White are obviously both nasty bits of work. Ms White is the typical big aggressive black woman. I don't like Moyles either. The rest are OK. None of them are very interesting though. And most of them are thick.
Hancock is being attacked for being a "rule maker and a rule breaker", but he never made the rules. The rules were determined by SAGE and drafted by the Civil Service. That's why they were nonsense. I never even knew what the rules were, as they didn't make any sense, and I don't care. I probably broke most of them just like everyone else. Those who are attacking Hancock are mainly hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 12, 2022 11:22:16 GMT
I agree. And at least Hancock was elected via the democratic process, he has a democratic mandate, and his alleged misdeeds are between him and his constituents.
But who the fuck voted for White/Moyles & Co? Oh yeah, no one. So who are they to judge?
|
|
|
|
Post by brexitcrusader83 on Nov 18, 2022 7:19:46 GMT
I've watch it from day 1 and can safely say Matt Hancock could win the whole thing.
He has been outstanding and the public and warming to him very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 18, 2022 9:27:28 GMT
Boy George handcuffed a male escort to a radiator and abused him, went to prison and he was like, well yeah, I'm sorry I was high on drugs, acting as if he was just a naughty schoolboy.
The man is a fucking abuser.
He is being paid a fortune to be on that show and shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 9:52:30 GMT
Once again Vinny. Boy George is an ex-offender who has served his sentence and repaid his debt to society. There is no reason he should notbe on the programme.
If you don't like him don't watch, it is that simple.
It's surely a tired old format that has been recycled to death. Why are you watching anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 18, 2022 10:29:09 GMT
Remind us where you stand on Rolf Harris again, Dappy.  |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 18, 2022 11:19:49 GMT
#See above on this thread, Squeezed.
And why the two cases are different.
Did you not get it first time? Did you not agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 18, 2022 12:24:58 GMT
cant believe you lot watch this sadecase piece of z list TV
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 18, 2022 13:08:14 GMT
cant believe you lot watch this sadecase piece of z list TV It's car crash TV that satiates a desire for conflict and outrage in its viewers and provides a possible route to redemption for its contestants who are generally repugnant characters with a history of indiscretions and a burning desire to return to the spotlight. A great example of the dumbing down of TV, piggy backing off the success of shows like Big Brother. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 1, 2022 16:59:55 GMT
Of course I do. I was wondering if you do. So do you think that you could answer my question? Honestly, honestly? Well, do you think those convicted of sex offences against minors should be barred from such guff as a i’m a celebrity, with a load of ‘adults’ miles from anywhere (although if I recall actually just round the corner from someone’s outback hideout) |
|
