Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster
"Ya gotta laugh son"
WHY Is the naming of Cliff Richard being interviewed by police as part of a 400 year old sexual assault allegation, the media circus being tipped off by police as to their search of his house, and the further interview by police a year or so later - all with no charges being brought - more acceptable to some than the possible naming of a 'superstar' who has allegedly contracted HIV through indiscreet promiscuity?
Allegedly, Cliff may be a pervert ('allegedly' and 'may' being the key words) but is he really such a danger to others that naming him BEFORE he has actually been arrested, charged, and convicted, can be justified as a public duty? Whereas, if this 'superstar has HIV and is still promiscuous, naming him CAN be justified as being in the public interest - forwarning possible sexual partners being paramount.
Just asking.
|
At first glance I thought you were outing Cliff Richard as the guy with HIV... then I remembered "womanizer" lol.
Well I can only speak for myself but personally I was against all the publicity surrounding the Cliff Richard issue as well, or any situation where someone has their name dragged through the mud without there being any real evidence. Generally I'm not the kind of person who is interested in anything to do with celebrities anyway so the circus that erupts every time a celebrity MAY have done something just annoys me, especially when there's real news going on elsewhere.
I disagree though that the naming of this celebrity would be in the public's interest as a way of forewarning potential sex partners, because that's not the way we deal with people who have HIV. The only possible reason for doing it in this case, is because he's a celebrity. But I think when it comes to medical issues they should have the same right to privacy as the rest of us. I know it doesn't exactly work out that way and he will probably end up being named regardless, but that's my stance on it anyway.