[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm do you not remember the whole injunction and super injunction scandal recently?? yes, the authorities CAN cover things up. especially when a celebrity is involved.

I must have missed the bit where i said they couldnt i could have sworn the sentiment was didnt.

Originally Posted by lostalex

umm, why would you not care? If it's true then it's very important and you SHOULD care.

Once again you comletely miss the point that was it makes no odds to me if he was or he wasnt. The claims were raised with the law 40 years ago and went nowhere on the basis they were nothing but baseless claims.

The bbc was in the process of making a programme about the claims a year ago only to drop it after speaking to the people who made the claims.

Now he is dead ITV have picked up the baton and interviewed the people who made the claims hence the tabloid title "FRESH CLAIMS" yep its only fresh claims because a struggling tv station made them repeat the claims a good old media trick to make it sound like its not old news only dumbtards fall for that one and there are plenty about.

I coudnt care a dick about his legacy or his reputation but these same claims were laughed away when he was alive its just scummy behaviour from a struggling tv station to get the claims repeated within a year of his death because they know nobody can refute them.

Its nothing but profiteering whether he was guilty or not and thats just a disgusting mentality.

It just doesnt sit well with me it was looked at when the claims were made it was investigated by the police and came to nothing but now he is dead and a bit of money can be made out of it a tv station desperate for money can act as judge,jury and executioner.