 |
|
| Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
13-11-2015, 05:11 PM
|
#10 | |||
|
||||
|
Senior Member
|
"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.
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts". Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) .................................................. .. Press The Spoiler Button to See All My Songs Spoiler: Last edited by kirklancaster; 13-11-2015 at 05:11 PM. |
|||
|
| Register to reply Log in to reply |
|
|
Threaded Mode