He is daft to express personal opinions in an interview, anyone is, because in this country we are no longer allowed free speech, without people being jumped on, calls for resignations or sackings etc.
He does believe in an afterlife, he thinks what we do in this life could haunt us in a future one, not something most believe in, but it is his opinion. I don't think for one moment what he was saying was that victims bring their suffering on themselves, but the good old tabloids will jump on it and make a big deal out of it.
He does believe in an afterlife, he thinks what we do in this life could haunt us in a future one, not something most believe in, but it is his opinion. I don't think for one moment what he was saying was that victims bring their suffering on themselves, but the good old tabloids will jump on it and make a big deal out of it.
What he seems to be implying is that victims of sexual abuse are effectively being punished for their deeds in a past life. Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
What he seems to be implying is that victims of sexual abuse are effectively being punished for their deeds in a past life. Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
Yes I think so. Karma and all that. I agree with Paralax.
He really needs to keep his gob shut. Is it just me or has he just started to come out with these "pearls of wisdom" in the last couple of years?. Maybe there is actually something wrong with him?.:(
He really needs to keep his gob shut. Is it just me or has he just started to come out with these "pearls of wisdom" in the last couple of years?. Maybe there is actually something wrong with him?.:(
He is 80 perhaps age is catching up on him and he has senior moments.:(
I doubt it was a senior moment. He's just an insensitive creep
Who knows i just think what he said was wrong,but i would not call him an insensitive creep everybody is entitled to their view even though i may disagree.:)
Sorry but that is nonsense, I seriously doubt he has undergone a damascene conversion from what he said, so the apology is entirely meaningless. The worry is how many other people have the rather sick beliefs that he seems to have.
Be interesting to see how this plays out. People seem to hang on Helen Flanagan's every word to try and create "outrage", but, IMO, this is far worse.
Just watched that. I wonder how many other people have?
Now that I have, got to say I'm at a bit of a loss as to what exactly is causing the outrage?
He denounced paedophilia and said if that's what someone was guilty of, then they deserved condemnation. The only point he was really making imo is that Saville has stirred up hysteria and caused people to lose perspective and objectivity. And he's certainly not wrong there.
And surely he can't be condemned for supporting a friend who, as yet, is not guilty of anything?
Who knows i just think what he said was wrong,but i would not call him an insensitive creep everybody is entitled to their view even though i may disagree.:)
People don't understand that being "entitled to their views" doesn't mean they are "entitled to their views with no critical response"
As far as his other point is concerned about not knowing the age of groupies. Here's a good rule of thumb. If you don't know their age, you keep your hands to yourself.
To you maybe , to me they are unpalatable and I disagree with him. Unacceptable to me says he should not say them at all , whilst I wish he hadn't he does have the right to do so, there are many religious views or political opinions that many of us find wrong but as long as they dont incite hatred or violence then people have to be allowed to speak.
I often sit there and think "my God this person (whoever is spouting vile garbage at the time) should not be allowed airtime, or allowed to speak as they do" but then I remember that I also think that better out than in so to speak, its better to hear something unpalatable than have it underground , in the open you can deal with it, when its hidden you cannot.
I dont remember bill roache being as predominante in the media as he has been lately. he seems to be losing the plot
A lot of this seems to have come to light since his wife died. Obviously that would have been a shock to the system for many people, not least someone of his age. Seems to have plunged him into a bit of a personal crisis.
I think he was right to say people shouldn't play judge and jury until the full facts are known. Some of his comments have obviously been prompted by Michael Le Vell's current situation.
He doesn't, because it's doubtful he ever actually said the quote attributed to him
In any case, the issue here isn't Bill Roache's free speech being denied. Yes, he can say what he wants, but people have a right to respond. If he says something moronic, he'll be called out on it.
I don't agree with him, but if that's what he believes I admire him for being honest.
It seems people would rather he lies or refuses to answer such questions.
The latter would have been preferable in hindsight.
I don't agree with him, but if that's what he believes I admire him for being honest.
It seems people would rather he lies or refuses to answer such questions.
The latter would have been preferable in hindsight.
Yes it would, since his comments are idiotic and add nothing useful or constructive to the serious situation he is opining on other than being an example of warped thinking. Rather than lying or refusing to answer questions requiring answers clearly above his intellectual capacity, I'd suggest a third option. He should consider actually applying logic and reason to his opinions to see if they can be improved and brought closer to something approaching rationality.
A lot of this seems to have come to light since his wife died. Obviously that would have been a shock to the system for many people, not least someone of his age. Seems to have plunged him into a bit of a personal crisis.
I think he was right to say people shouldn't play judge and jury until the full facts are known. Some of his comments have obviously been prompted by Michael Le Vell's current situation.
I think he's been following a number of new age spiritual paths for a long time but I think his second wife reined him in a bit so he didn't make a fool of himself in public. Now that she's no longer with him he's saying stuff he'd never have said publicly while she was alive.
My view is that he lost his wife and has turned to spiritualism as a comfort towards the end of his life. For that reason it seems unfair for anyone to harangue an old and desperate man (unless you really believe that he has injured you personally).
Comments
He does believe in an afterlife, he thinks what we do in this life could haunt us in a future one, not something most believe in, but it is his opinion. I don't think for one moment what he was saying was that victims bring their suffering on themselves, but the good old tabloids will jump on it and make a big deal out of it.
What he seems to be implying is that victims of sexual abuse are effectively being punished for their deeds in a past life. Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
Yes I think so. Karma and all that. I agree with Paralax.
He is 80 perhaps age is catching up on him and he has senior moments.:(
However i tend to agree with paralax post 77.
I doubt it was a senior moment. He's just an insensitive creep
Who knows i just think what he said was wrong,but i would not call him an insensitive creep everybody is entitled to their view even though i may disagree.:)
Well said
Just watched that. I wonder how many other people have?
Now that I have, got to say I'm at a bit of a loss as to what exactly is causing the outrage?
He denounced paedophilia and said if that's what someone was guilty of, then they deserved condemnation. The only point he was really making imo is that Saville has stirred up hysteria and caused people to lose perspective and objectivity. And he's certainly not wrong there.
And surely he can't be condemned for supporting a friend who, as yet, is not guilty of anything?
His views are unacceptable
As far as his other point is concerned about not knowing the age of groupies. Here's a good rule of thumb. If you don't know their age, you keep your hands to yourself.
They are but i would remind you of this.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire.
Voltaire has a lot to answer for
Some viewpoints have to be challenged. theoretically that statement could be applied to racists/homophobes etc
Oh yes they have to be challneged but better out in the open for challenge then in private with no challenge just my opinion though.
Voltaire yes does have a lot to answer for.:D:D
I agree with this post
I dont remember bill roache being as predominante in the media as he has been lately. he seems to be losing the plot
To you maybe , to me they are unpalatable and I disagree with him. Unacceptable to me says he should not say them at all , whilst I wish he hadn't he does have the right to do so, there are many religious views or political opinions that many of us find wrong but as long as they dont incite hatred or violence then people have to be allowed to speak.
I often sit there and think "my God this person (whoever is spouting vile garbage at the time) should not be allowed airtime, or allowed to speak as they do" but then I remember that I also think that better out than in so to speak, its better to hear something unpalatable than have it underground , in the open you can deal with it, when its hidden you cannot.
A lot of this seems to have come to light since his wife died. Obviously that would have been a shock to the system for many people, not least someone of his age. Seems to have plunged him into a bit of a personal crisis.
I think he was right to say people shouldn't play judge and jury until the full facts are known. Some of his comments have obviously been prompted by Michael Le Vell's current situation.
He doesn't, because it's doubtful he ever actually said the quote attributed to him
In any case, the issue here isn't Bill Roache's free speech being denied. Yes, he can say what he wants, but people have a right to respond. If he says something moronic, he'll be called out on it.
It seems people would rather he lies or refuses to answer such questions.
The latter would have been preferable in hindsight.
Why theoretically?
If you accept it for one then you should accept it for all.
The bottom line is that there is a certain line within that that if he ever does cross, rest assured Ken Barlow would be no more :P
He is the new David Ike lol
Yes it would, since his comments are idiotic and add nothing useful or constructive to the serious situation he is opining on other than being an example of warped thinking. Rather than lying or refusing to answer questions requiring answers clearly above his intellectual capacity, I'd suggest a third option. He should consider actually applying logic and reason to his opinions to see if they can be improved and brought closer to something approaching rationality.
I think he's been following a number of new age spiritual paths for a long time but I think his second wife reined him in a bit so he didn't make a fool of himself in public. Now that she's no longer with him he's saying stuff he'd never have said publicly while she was alive.