KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

01-05-2013 11:17AM

mirwillbeback wrote: »

First Kevin Webster.

Now Ken Barlow.

It all sounds like a bad script for a TV soap opera

Oh, two separate people then? Which one is Ken Barlow?

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-05-2013 11:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Crazy that everyone seems to have mentally unblocked their trauma at roughly the same time. :rolleyes:

Maybe people are getting the courage to come forward after seeing others do it. That's not to say that all the allegations are true, but they still all have to be investigated.

Rascasse · 01-05-2013 11:21AM

Only in the last couple of months he was saying people accused of this sort of thing should be forgiven and that sexual abuse victims bring it on themselves because of what they've done in past lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGw9RfmFdQ

Arawn · 01-05-2013 11:21AM

Statute of limitations would surely apply no?

FloatingVoter · 01-05-2013 11:28AM

The mans a serial adulterer, his daughter is a convicted murderer, son is of a violent disposition with alcohol problems and to top it all off he's married to a shriveled prune - this comes as no surprise.
Myself and Blanche knew he was a wrong 'un from the start.

Duckworth_Luas · 01-05-2013 11:32AM

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The mans a serial adulterer, his daughter is a convicted murderer, son is of a violent disposition with alcohol problems and to top it all off he's married to a shriveled prune - this comes as no surprise.
Myself and Blanche knew he was a wrong 'un from the start.

Wow, it's as if this guy walked straight off the set of Eastenders!

syklops · 01-05-2013 11:34AM

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

Maybe people are getting the courage to come forward after seeing others do it. That's not to say that all the allegations are true, but they still all have to be investigated.

Maybe people are getting the courage to do so after they heard about the compensation Jimmy Saville victims might be getting

syklops · 01-05-2013 11:39AM

Rascasse wrote: »

Only in the last couple of months he was saying people accused of this sort of thing should be forgiven and that sexual abuse victims bring it on themselves because of what they've done in past lives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGw9RfmFdQ

Did you even watch that video? No where does he say that sex abuse victims bring it on himself. He said there is a difference between predators grooming children and pop stars who sleep with groupies. He also said, there should be anonymity for both the accused and the accuser until facts have been determined. Considering we are in a thread discussing his arrest after an anonymous allegation, he was right.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-05-2013 11:40AM

syklops wrote: »

Maybe people are getting the courage to do so after they heard about the compensation Jimmy Saville victims might be getting

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

Dancor · 01-05-2013 11:47AM

Mike Baldwin will be laughing in his grave.

Rascasse · 01-05-2013 11:50AM

syklops wrote: »

Did you even watch that video? No where does he say that sex abuse victims bring it on himself. He said there is a difference between predators grooming children and pop stars who sleep with groupies. He also said, there should be anonymity for both the accused and the accuser until facts have been determined. Considering we are in a thread discussing his arrest after an anonymous allegation, he was right.

Did you watch it?

From 1m 8s

Roache: “If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won’t happen to you.”

Interviewer: “To some people that sounds perhaps like you’re saying victims bring things on themselves – is that what you’re saying?”

Roache: “No, not quite, but and yet I am, because everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever.”

The comments caused quite a stir at the time.

He even made a ham-fisted attempt at explaining his comments, where he went on to again defend those accused of historical sexual offences (I imagine he knew today was coming).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieb8GEedLX0

Think_then_talk · 01-05-2013 11:55AM

Arawn wrote: »

Statute of limitations would surely apply no?

The Limitation Act is relevant to civil cases only - it does not apply to criminal cases.

Unregistered. · 01-05-2013 12:00PM

Madam_X · 01-05-2013 12:06PM

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-05-2013 12:07PM

Madam_X wrote: »

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

Silly me, I should have known!

syklops · 01-05-2013 12:08PM

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

syklops · 01-05-2013 12:11PM

Madam_X wrote: »

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

So you genuinely think that the population of Britain have experienced some kind of mass memory revival, and its just a coincidence that all the abusers are celebrities.

And how do you know I was never abused?

mikehammer67 · 01-05-2013 12:11PM

syklops wrote: »

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

they have to prove guilt unless the justice system has changed

Skid X · 01-05-2013 12:11PM

biko wrote: »

I don't like it when I have to google people that get threads in AH.

Seriously - Ken Barlow? You've never heard of Ken Barlow? He's only ... Ah forget it.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-05-2013 12:17PM

syklops wrote: »

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

The onus of proof is on the prosecuting side, so if this goes to trial, he doesn't have to say a word. Well, I think that's how it operates in the UK anyway.

I'm not saying that the allegations are true, or that it's fair that he's been identified before a trial has begun. But if someone makes a serious claim like that, it can't be shrugged off just because other people might be able to claim significant damages in an entirely different case.

Plazaman · 01-05-2013 12:18PM

I think Bill Roache (aka Ken) has gone mental over the last year or so and no one has had the guts to say it. Another celeb being mollycoddled. The fact that he has always had a reputation of being a womaniser (earning him his insect nickname - hint see his last name) it doesn't surprise me that there had to be a least some scandal somewhere along the way.

wonderfullife · 01-05-2013 12:18PM

This could be a variety of things really. A genuine allegation of a crime is the most obvious one. But given "Barlow" has recently called for anonymity for those accused of sex offences, it's a little strange to now see himself accused. So there is a minor chance this is a malicious allegation.

The question of why it has taken 46 years isn't overly relevant. It's a personal issue for the woman. A lot of Savilles victims took decades to come forward too.

Unlike Saville, if this is an isolated allegation it will be awfully difficult to prove and/or convict. It's literally her word against his and like it or not Ken Barlow aka Bill Roache is an institution in England. Perhaps after Saville people would be more willing to see past that but i still can't see a Judge or Jury getting to a guilty verdict on a "he said/she said" allegation almost 50 years old.

Actually i can't see it getting to trial in the first place.

01-05-2013 12:23PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

This could be a variety of things really. A genuine allegation of a crime is the most obvious one. But given "Barlow" has recently called for anonymity for those accused of sex offences, it's a little strange to now see himself accused. So there is a minor chance this is a malicious allegation.

The question of why it has taken 46 years isn't overly relevant. It's a personal issue for the woman. A lot of Savilles victims took decades to come forward too.

Unlike Saville, if this is an isolated allegation it will be awfully difficult to prove and/or convict. It's literally her word against his and like it or not Ken Barlow aka Bill Roache is an institution in England. Perhaps after Saville people would be more willing to see past that but i still can't see a Judge or Jury getting to a guilty verdict on a "he said/she said" allegation almost 50 years old.

Actually i can't see it getting to trial in the first place.

So because he is of the opinion that celebs shouldn't be named before allegations are investigated thoroughly, that is evidence that he is a sex offender?

That's like saying that someone who is pro-choice more than likely performs back alley abortions.

wonderfullife · 01-05-2013 12:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So because he is of the opinion that celebs shouldn't be named before allegations are investigated thoroughly, that is evidence that he is a sex offender?

That's like saying that someone who is pro-choice more than likely performs back alley abortions.

what?

Did you read my post?

I said there is a minor chance this is a malicious allegation. Which means given his recent comments someone out there may want to make an allegation for reasons other than an actual crime occurring.

01-05-2013 12:31PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

what?

Did you read my post?

I said there is a minor chance this is a malicious allegation. Which means given his recent comments someone out there may want to make an allegation for reasons other than an actual crime occurring.

Nope! I completely misread your post. Trying to read quickly while in work meant I got is arseways.

Sorry about that.:o

The Barefoot Pizza Thief · 01-05-2013 12:56PM

Plazaman wrote: »

The fact that he has always had a reputation of being a womaniser.

I'll not have it said!

Oh wait..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8dVXHoGyf4

Ray Palmer · 01-05-2013 01:02PM

mirwillbeback wrote: »

First Kevin Webster.

Now Ken Barlow.

It all sounds like a bad script for a TV soap opera

Craig Charles was also charged with rape years ago and found innocent. He came out at the time very critical of the system that allows defendants to be named while accusers are not.

Neither should be named. The accusations are damaging in themselves and people have been blackmailed using the threat of just making the accusation.

The law is different here. I genuinely see these cases as offensive in how they are handled. The law should be changed in the UK, one thing with a public figure but a regular Joe could be in danger for just being charged

Rascasse · 01-05-2013 01:11PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Neither should be named.

In this day and age I think that is near impossible. Look at the 'super' injunctions in the UK. That's not to say the law shouldn't be changed, it should, but celebrities names will always get out whether from the police, juror, witness, victim, etc.

Another example is the recent case where a teenage actor in the UK was accused of raping another boy. As he was under 18 there was an order not to name him, yet Google will tell you who it is in seconds.

My name is URL · 01-05-2013 01:20PM

Holy fcuk.. I wouldn't have guessed he was 81 :eek:

Corkfeen · 01-05-2013 01:24PM

syklops wrote: »

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

I don't agree with the names being released at such an early stage. But many abuse victims need an event such as Saville to allow them to reach that point where they feel they can come forward publicly. Many of them probably didn't even believe the individual would be convicted and felt guilty for the event themselves. This is apparent in Ireland with the abuses in the church where allegations went back many decades came out and victims felt ashamed of the events in question.

KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

Comments