He never had the chance to speak at the hearing to deny your suggestion, where as Barrymore REFUSED to speak.
It is an open verdict so he was,nt cleared of anything, and unlike the Lubbock family he had the VERY best lawyers His millions could buy.

Am I stupid or did he have to apply for a work visa?

Gill

Point taken sadly he was not able to speak or deny otherwise, I can only go on what was written in the papers (not exactly reliabale for either party) and it did not appear to be the first time he had taken drugs.

The fact that Mr Barrymore refused to speak is a difficult one, in my long distant past when I helped police with their enquires. (juvenile crime) my solicitor told me to say nothing that way its up to the defence to prove everything. If thats right or wrong in a case such as Barrymores I don't know.

However the point about him getting the best lawyer with his millions, so would I. !

But I feel the point you are trying to make is with money you have a fighting chance of getting away with anything if there is any shadow of doubt. Or if you are in the USA and you have money you can buy yourself off.

Which also means to date he is not guilty of anything.

Look at the guy off breakfast TV (can't remember name) but He has been condemed by the press and his carrer down the pan, and in todays paper it says no case to answer.

So the problem is who do you believe, I did not know Staurt Lubbock or his family, I do not know barrymore or his family, all I know is what I read in the press, usually stories written by people trying to make money.

Just look at this forum and how some people interpret posts in different ways.

Only two people know what happened that night, sadly one cant say, the other has to live with either the consequence of his actions that lead to a tragic accident OR / AND live with the fact that his actions killed someone.

Until such times as anything is proven one way or the other he is an innocent man with a good character.

I'm pleased he's settling in NZ with his new "husband" and not Australia.

They may reduce the points required for NZ when the number of applicants hits rock bottom.

Hmm. The one you mean may not face trial but he is a complete and utter (I deleted it before ptlabs could) - he has destroyed many a young girl's faith in men/ decency.

He should rot, not get a shed load of offers as today's press says.

Cheers - Don

sorry wrong post..;-)


cheers

richard

don, you are talking compete and utter (I deleted it before ptlabs could)

cheers

richard

Do you know the guy to know he is guilty of anything.

Hi/
Rumour has it he's not stopping in NZ for long.
He's doing a sitcom for the BBC set in a tower block in Peckham, London with David Jason. They're going to call it " Only Pools and Corpses" (sorry, it had to be said )

The original post was how did he get a visa, so judging by what is needed for visa purposes yes he is of good character.

If his character is based on the fact that he is a gay man, I would have no hesitation in letting him baby sit. (if I had any).

However his addiction to drink and drugs (if he is still addicted) would in my view, make him an unreliable character so on that basis I would not want him to baby sit my kids.

My only argument with any of this thread is that people seem very quick to condemn a man / woman on gutter press information. In this country you are still innocent until proven guilty.

This is a public forum and I personally think its wrong to call anyone a sicko or pervert when they have not been convicted by a court of law. It amounts to slander.

Of course that does not mean that you are not entitled to an opinion. My problem is I know people that have been falsly accused of crimes (not me !!) and even though found not guilty had there lives ruined by the gutter press and by people who believe theres no smoke without fire.

On saying all of the above, it does not mean that I think Mr Barrymore was innocent of all wrong doing.

I must agree with Karawara.

He has been condemed for three reasons.

1. He is gay

2. He used his right to remain silent

3. And that he indulges in drink and drugs.


None of them (in my opinion) should be used to condemn him. Possibly a charge of negligence as it was on his premises. But you can't tell me that the victim went to Barrymores place not knowing what went on there.

The verdict should of been accidental death.

Good point.

I am with Drog1998 on this one.

Whats the big deal about Barrymore being in NZ, he is a known quantity. Do you know the habits of the bloke who has just migrated and now living in your street? would rather have Barrymore next door than the headmaster from my local high school who has just been busted for child porn.

Well you could be right and it wouldn't be the first time but The Sun had a dossier of about 30 girls coming forward complaining about his drunken sexual advances that were tantamount to assault and yes there is something personal involved here too.

Cheers - Don

Not according to Fridays Telegraph. Apperently he loves NZ so much that he and his partner are planning on buying a property there.

Well would you expect that fine journalistic establishment(!) The Sun to dig up anything else, Don?!?

I agree with Karawara that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Barrymore may not have been found guilty, however he has paid a heavy price - complete public ostracism and loss of his livelihood in the UK. That in itself is punishment enough, don't you think? Though it seems that some people on this thread let their prejudices get the better of them and think that an innocent man should be persecuted because of what he does in bed. I wasn't at that party that night, neither was anyone else on this forum, so who are we to judge?

Russ.