George Michael

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/62559 /George-Michael-says-sorry-over-cocaine-arrest

Getting caught smoking a legal drug in a public place, and the long arm of the law would come heavily down on the ordinary guy, yet when a celebrity is caught in possession of illegal drugs, then they get off with a caution.

Should this pathetic person been let off once again?

A stiff jail sentence would have knocked that sickly grin off his face as well as conveying the message to his fans that Drugs are not 'Glam'.

[terambulan]

Sorry if my picture is bigger than yours, Tetjam

[tigerlily11]

Shagging a bloke can either way Tet. Come on use your brain.

[anotheoldgit]

I am sorry, but that is just rubbish. A lot of extremely intelligent people have taken/are taking/will take drugs.

Extremely intelligent people, and their taking of class A drugs is a contradictory of terms.

[anotheoldgit]

What has come out of this discussion is the fact that George Michael appears to be very popular, therefore he can do no harm in some peoples eyes, plus the fact that he should be treated no differently to any ordinary person.

The fact remains though, he is no ordinary person, as a celebrity he is forever in the public gaze, that is the price of fame.

The question one has to ask is, would one be so foregiving if he had been a High Court Judge, an Archbishop, a Leading Politician, a Senior Policeman or even a Headmaster? I very much doubt it knowing my fellow ABers.

[LoftyLottie]

AOG. I stick by my original statement, i.e. it is totally rubbish to think that intelligent people would not take A class drugs. High intelligence does not preclude us from making grave mistakes in life. Far from it.

[LoftyLottie]

No-one on here has even remotely indicated that George Michael is above reproach and can do no harm. I admire his music, I think he is talented, I think he is intelligent and likeable. I think it is sad that he has drug and other issues which are unsavoury, but he hasn't commited any dreadful crimes or, as far as I know, hurt anybody except himself by his activities.

You cannot compare him to a judge, senior policeman etc. who are in positions where they are able to judge people and have a duty to us all. They should be dealt with severely in similar circumstances. George Michael is purely a musician who has found fame. If people (and I doubt whether they have) use him as a role model, then it is not his fault!

[bazwillrun]

lauaghable, drop a crisp on the floor or dare to overfill your rubbish bin, put it a few inches in the wrong place, etc etc & wham (no pun intended !)the gestapo agents (Civil Enforcement Agents as the councils like to call them) of your local scumbag council will try and slap an �80 plus fine on you.

Be famous get caught yet again, this time in possession of a class A drug and get let off without even a slap on your limp wrist, just a friggin police caution .

Thats whats wrong with this country

[andy-hughes]

AOG - to refere back to your earlier response to me -

yes people do have problems, but cottaging is a lifestyle choice, not a response to personal issues - plenty of men are perfeclty at ease doing it. As for the comparison with Garry Glitter, that patently does not stand up to scrutiny.

Two men consenting to a sexual act is hardly on a par with sexually abusing innocent children - there is an element of choice and decision making in the first, and obviusly not in the second, the two are worlds apart.

The thread seems to reveal that a number of responders object to George Michael's caution on the basis that he is famous and / or homsexual. the fact remains that his defender do not suggest he is above the law, and indeed, in this instance, the law was perfectly fairly applied. You can disagree with the law, but that is not GM's fault, so he should not be pilloried for its correct ussage in his case.

[tigerlily11]

The cottaging thing would be so bad if they actually kept it between themselves but they don't.
In central MK The loos there have become unusable because of this. H won't use them and neither will my sons because they won't just keep to themselves.
Some of them have a hard time Excepting that some blokes are just not that way inclined, and that comes straight from our ex-landlord who had just that mentality

[Quinlad]

Here are some drug-takers. I'd say they count as extremely intelligent. So perhaps not a contradition in terms?

Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Salivor Dali
Charles Dickens
Arthur Conan Doyle
Benjamin Franklin
Sigmund Freud
John Keats
Pope Leo XIII
Pablo Picasso
Cole Porter
Cardinal Duc de Richelieu
Sir Walter Scott
Shelly
Robert Louis Stevenson
Jules Verne
William Wilberforce
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
William S. Burroughs
Lewis Carrol
Jean Cocteau
Aldous Huxley
Steve Jobs
John Lennon
Vincent Van Gogh
Lord Byron
Norman Mailer
Hunter S Thompson