And once again people get their knickers into a twist about nothing and react in mock outrage because of a totally unconnected case. We should raise the twitter army (never has a name been so correct) and burn him at the stake and Corrie should be taken off tv and the show never should be meantioned again blah blah blah blah
He has a set of believes that quite a few (millions and millions) share. Why dont they ask him the question "so you belive that the couple who won the lottery just before they lost their house did so because they did good deeds in a past life?". Are we such lemmings today we change our believes according to the question?
As for the comments about his thoughts on his wife, Take a walk though any grave yard and you will see the words "till we meet again" I guess they are all insane as well?
Bill Roache basically needs to shut up and piss off. The guy is clearly out of his mind.
He has a set of believes that quite a few (millions and millions) share.
Then such people are as stupid as he is.
As for the comments about his thoughts on his wife, Take a walk though any grave yard and you will see the words "till we meet again" I guess they are all insane as well?
A grieving and desperate person holding onto the hope of seeing a beloved relative again is different to a man claiming that abuse victims are paying for acts in previous lives.
And once again people get their knickers into a twist about nothing and react in mock outrage because of a totally unconnected case. We should raise the twitter army (never has a name been so correct) and burn him at the stake and Corrie should be taken off tv and the show never should be meantioned again blah blah blah blah
He has a set of believes that quite a few (millions and millions) share. Why dont they ask him the question "so you belive that the couple who won the lottery just before they lost their house did so because they did good deeds in a past life?". Are we such lemmings today we change our believes according to the question?
As for the comments about his thoughts on his wife, Take a walk though any grave yard and you will see the words "till we meet again" I guess they are all insane as well?
Your view depends on whether critics of his stance believe that good fortune depends on good deeds in a past life, when they obviously don't believe that.
Saying victims of sex crimes deserved it due to misdeeds in a past life is offensive, regardless of how many others share that offensive belief and how you try and spin it or act as an apologist for it.
And 'till we meet again' on a grave stone may be a form of words, a wish, rather than meant literally, and, even it was, it is by no means the same.
Presumably it is the case of his long time colleague Michael Le Vell that has made him so full of bile on this? He also stated all perpetrators of abuse should be entirely forgiven.
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with his idea of karma we deal with the here and now and his theory - putting all the blame and responsibility on the victim - gives the abuser a free pass to do as they like! We as a civilised nation have to protect the weak and vulnerable from people who take advantage - not give them more excuses. He had nothing positive to add to the debate, he has just stirred things up with his theories. How does he think his ideas would make the victim of child abuse feel? It was all their own fault for being bad in a previous life!! What about the abuser will they be punished in the next life or because its not their fault do they get a free pass next time too?!
I don't share his beliefs but I can see how if you believe in reincarnation as a spiritual journey where you suffer trials and tribulations so that you can learn from them and grow spiritually with each life you live, then it makes sense that bad things can happen to you until you learn from them and move on. I think that is what he meant, rather than saying it's your fault if bad things happen. I don't think he was saying that the perpetrator is not to blame.
The seperate issue of certain behaviours being acceptable years ago is true to some extent and I do think the whole Savile thing has moved away from outing abusers and instead has focussed on the occasional grope or innapropriate behaviour of celebs who were out partying with underage groupies.
Your view depends on whether critics of his stance believe that good fortune depends on good deeds in a past life, when they obviously don't believe that.
Saying victims of sex crimes deserved it due to misdeeds in a past life is offensive, regardless of how many others share that offensive belief and how you try and spin it or act as an apologist for it.
And 'till we meet again' on a grave stone may be a form of words, a wish, rather than meant literally, and, even it was, it is by no means the same.
Its a very simple view of a complicated subject and typical of the way peoples believes are shown when dont fit into a box.
People belive Jesus will raise again and in fact did raise up from the dead this is seen as acceptable and the "norm" but someone who has a different set of believes but no less logicial etc is seen as a nutter or a loon etc.
The reporter turned a non story interview into a story interview (mainly because the media like to dumb down stories for the TOWIE fans) by asking a question in which he had little choice in which road he went down.
He did say it was a shocking crime and a crime that those who are found guilty of should be punished
His views might be out of the park but some bloke dying on a cross who could walk on water,raise the dead etc sounds to me just as loony,strange,stupied, nutty and unbelivable as his. They might not cause as much offense but does not make his views any more or less valid then anyone elses. We might not agree with them but he is allowed them. I disagree with them but just as much as i disagree that gods son walked the earth or we all disended from Aliens or Elvis is working in tesco or X factor is about singing
Possibly unfair that the media have jumped on him for this. He's clearly spouting New Age and mystic nonsense, and it should be treated as such rather than taken literally.
Its a very simple view of a complicated subject and typical of the way peoples believes are shown when dont fit into a box.
People belive Jesus will raise again and in fact did raise up from the dead this is seen as acceptable and the "norm" but someone who has a different set of believes but no less logicial etc is seen as a nutter or a loon etc.
The reporter turned a non story interview into a story interview (mainly because the media like to dumb down stories for the TOWIE fans) by asking a question in which he had little choice in which road he went down.
He did say it was a shocking crime and a crime that those who are found guilty of should be punished (and of course would also be punished in the next life).
His views might be out of the park but some bloke dying on a cross who could walk on water,raise the dead etc sounds to me just as loony,strange,stupied, nutty and unbelivable as his. They might not cause as much offense but does not make his views any more or less valid then anyone elses. We might not agree with them but he is allowed them. I disagree with them but just as much as i disagree that gods son walked the earth or we all disended from Aliens or Elvis is working in tesco or X factor is about singing
And I don't believe those either. His view was offensive and the subject isn't at all complicated but pretty mundane.
And no one is saying he is not entitled to his beliefs, but arguing with the content of them.
In the Piers Morgan interview a couple of years ago, Bill claimed his dead wife is acting as a nanny to dead babies in the afterlife. A "psychic" told him so, apparently.
And I don't believe those either. His view was offensive and the subject isn't at all complicated.
And no one is saying he is not entitled to his beliefs, but arguing with the content of them.
Lots of views of offensive but this is only a story because of this media obbesion with the Jimmy Saville case which they have moved so far from.
If someone who he was working with was not arrested recently this would be treated with the rubbish it deserves.
Its on par with all the other belives that have no bareing on reailty. This countrys views on God are offensive to the quite alot of the world, They think we should be banned from beliving and talking about them, Should we?
Why dont they ask him the question "so you belive that the couple who won the lottery just before they lost their house did so because they did good deeds in a past life?". Are we such lemmings today we change our believes according to the question?
Nope - why do you think the choice of question indicates a change of 'believes'? Remarks that appear to excuse sexual abuse tend to get people's backs up more than claims about why someone won the lottery after a particular event.
As for the comments about his thoughts on his wife, Take a walk though any grave yard and you will see the words "till we meet again" I guess they are all insane as well?
Well done on entirely missing the point. :rolleyes:
Well I guessed I must have sinned a lot in a previous life then!
Shame that everything else that goes along with being abused isn't transferred to another life then as well because I could have done without it in this one.
Its on par with all the other belives that have no bareing on reailty. This countrys views on God are offensive to the quite alot of the world, They think we should be banned from beliving and talking about them, Should we?
I'm sorry - who exactly thinks and/or states that you should be banned from believing?
Perhaps if some believers won't so intent on demonstrating how persecuted they are, they might have a more accurate understanding on why their beliefs are being challenged and what those challenges actually are.
Having your beliefs challenged is not the same as being banned from having those beliefs.
In any case, challenges to people's beliefs generally only happen when those beliefs encroach onto other people's lives. If those encroachments cannot be justified in a way that makes sense to people who don't share those beliefs, then the challenges are entirely justified.
But just to make sure you understand, that doesn't mean you are being banned from having those beliefs.
So, if some opportunist mugger decides to jump him from behind and beat the crap out of him, would he believe that it was something he did in a past life that brought it on and that the mugger should be forgiven and let off scot free?
I doubt it, no matter what he would argue to the contrary.
He really does need to learn when to stop running his mouth off about such matters. Stick to talking about Corrie because it's all he has known for the last, what, half century?
Methinks he's spent too much time living in drama la-la-land. Needs to distinguish between fiction and reality.
I used to like Bill Roache but the more I've found out about him, the more I've found him to be odious.
He claims to have slept with over 1000 women. I hope they were all over 16.
I have a feeling, based on who he is and his reputation in this country, that we'll get a withering 'apology' saying he was mis-quoted or that it was taken out of context and it'll be brushed under the carpet.
Expected though - not actually sorry for what he said, just sorry if people found it offensive. Watch for this to be slowly brushed under the carpet now.
It's an oddly fascinating comparison though - Helen Flanagan makes some stupid comments and she's absolutely vilified. People rush to climb aboard the bandwagon to claim it's all for "profile" and call her all sorts of names and the papers run OTT front page headlines as well.
Roache makes some genuinely offensive remarks about sexual abuse of which he's likely fully aware of what he's saying and it merits a single article in a few outlets and will most likely be put to bed now he's "apologised".
I suppose one is considered to be something akin to showbiz "royalty" and is treated accordingly, and the other is also clearly treated accordingly.
Why are people taking this so seriously? He is entitled to his views and they are really of no consquence to anyone else. He is not a politician, he has no power. There are plenty of other people in the world who believe the same as him. There are also plenty of other people in the world with other unusual beliefs.
What has happened to society? An old man spouts his views and everyone gets hot under the collar about it. Let him get on with it and if you don't agree just ignore him.
My father grew up in the same town as Roach and said he was an asshole, let us not forget this is a man who sued The Sun for saying he was boring and won the case, but was left out of pocket, ooh the vanity.
Comments
Actually, he's probably just stupid.
He "talked" to his dogs on This Morning via a psychic
He has a set of believes that quite a few (millions and millions) share. Why dont they ask him the question "so you belive that the couple who won the lottery just before they lost their house did so because they did good deeds in a past life?". Are we such lemmings today we change our believes according to the question?
As for the comments about his thoughts on his wife, Take a walk though any grave yard and you will see the words "till we meet again" I guess they are all insane as well?
I wondered what had happened to him.
I was wondering what had happened to Louise Lombard a few years ago and found out she ended up in one of these Law and Order/ CSI things as well.
Then such people are as stupid as he is.
A grieving and desperate person holding onto the hope of seeing a beloved relative again is different to a man claiming that abuse victims are paying for acts in previous lives.
Saying victims of sex crimes deserved it due to misdeeds in a past life is offensive, regardless of how many others share that offensive belief and how you try and spin it or act as an apologist for it.
And 'till we meet again' on a grave stone may be a form of words, a wish, rather than meant literally, and, even it was, it is by no means the same.
The seperate issue of certain behaviours being acceptable years ago is true to some extent and I do think the whole Savile thing has moved away from outing abusers and instead has focussed on the occasional grope or innapropriate behaviour of celebs who were out partying with underage groupies.
Its a very simple view of a complicated subject and typical of the way peoples believes are shown when dont fit into a box.
People belive Jesus will raise again and in fact did raise up from the dead this is seen as acceptable and the "norm" but someone who has a different set of believes but no less logicial etc is seen as a nutter or a loon etc.
The reporter turned a non story interview into a story interview (mainly because the media like to dumb down stories for the TOWIE fans) by asking a question in which he had little choice in which road he went down.
He did say it was a shocking crime and a crime that those who are found guilty of should be punished
His views might be out of the park but some bloke dying on a cross who could walk on water,raise the dead etc sounds to me just as loony,strange,stupied, nutty and unbelivable as his. They might not cause as much offense but does not make his views any more or less valid then anyone elses. We might not agree with them but he is allowed them. I disagree with them but just as much as i disagree that gods son walked the earth or we all disended from Aliens or Elvis is working in tesco or X factor is about singing
And no one is saying he is not entitled to his beliefs, but arguing with the content of them.
That's so sad
Lots of views of offensive but this is only a story because of this media obbesion with the Jimmy Saville case which they have moved so far from.
If someone who he was working with was not arrested recently this would be treated with the rubbish it deserves.
Its on par with all the other belives that have no bareing on reailty. This countrys views on God are offensive to the quite alot of the world, They think we should be banned from beliving and talking about them, Should we?
Yep - and trust me, they get challenged plenty as well. Argument ad populum carries no weight as far as I'm concerned.
Nope - why do you think the choice of question indicates a change of 'believes'? Remarks that appear to excuse sexual abuse tend to get people's backs up more than claims about why someone won the lottery after a particular event.
Well done on entirely missing the point. :rolleyes:
Shame that everything else that goes along with being abused isn't transferred to another life then as well because I could have done without it in this one.
He'll say anything to get a bit of the spotlight. Sick.
I'm sorry - who exactly thinks and/or states that you should be banned from believing?
Perhaps if some believers won't so intent on demonstrating how persecuted they are, they might have a more accurate understanding on why their beliefs are being challenged and what those challenges actually are.
Having your beliefs challenged is not the same as being banned from having those beliefs.
In any case, challenges to people's beliefs generally only happen when those beliefs encroach onto other people's lives. If those encroachments cannot be justified in a way that makes sense to people who don't share those beliefs, then the challenges are entirely justified.
But just to make sure you understand, that doesn't mean you are being banned from having those beliefs.
I doubt it, no matter what he would argue to the contrary.
He really does need to learn when to stop running his mouth off about such matters. Stick to talking about Corrie because it's all he has known for the last, what, half century?
Methinks he's spent too much time living in drama la-la-land. Needs to distinguish between fiction and reality.
I used to like Bill Roache but the more I've found out about him, the more I've found him to be odious.
He claims to have slept with over 1000 women. I hope they were all over 16.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/s3/coronation-street/news/a466776/coronation-street-bill-roache-sorry-for-sex-abuse-comments.html
I should work as a publicist.. heh
Expected though - not actually sorry for what he said, just sorry if people found it offensive. Watch for this to be slowly brushed under the carpet now.
It's an oddly fascinating comparison though - Helen Flanagan makes some stupid comments and she's absolutely vilified. People rush to climb aboard the bandwagon to claim it's all for "profile" and call her all sorts of names and the papers run OTT front page headlines as well.
Roache makes some genuinely offensive remarks about sexual abuse of which he's likely fully aware of what he's saying and it merits a single article in a few outlets and will most likely be put to bed now he's "apologised".
I suppose one is considered to be something akin to showbiz "royalty" and is treated accordingly, and the other is also clearly treated accordingly.
What has happened to society? An old man spouts his views and everyone gets hot under the collar about it. Let him get on with it and if you don't agree just ignore him.