KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

Madam_X · 01-05-2013 01:28PM

syklops wrote: »

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?

No, to be fair, you do make reasonable points. I'm talking more in relation to the people who just pipe up with the "What a coincidence, could it be compensation :rolleyes:" comments. Nasty IMO. I don't think it's fair. I'm not dismissing the possibility of false allegations, but I still think not taking them seriously initially and preferring to believe something dodgy is afoot, cheapens the seriousness of sexual abuse (as does making false allegations, I know). I agree the revelations could be causing others to feel braver about reporting. It happened here once the church abuse revelations started to trickle out.

As for the money: it would pay for counselling - an expense that may not be required were it not for the abuse. It would relieve financial pressure - and one less thing to worry about is deserved, given all the stress and turmoil. Doubtful they'd be living it up in Vegas or something.

Innocent until proven guilty though, and the accused definitely shouldn't be named. What a fecking circus.

wonderfullife · 01-05-2013 01:37PM

Madam_X wrote: »

No, to be fair, you do make reasonable points. I'm talking more in relation to the people who just pipe up with the "What a coincidence, could it be compensation :rolleyes:" comments. Nasty IMO. I don't think it's fair. I'm not dismissing the possibility of false allegations, but I still think not taking them seriously initially and preferring to believe something dodgy is afoot, cheapens the seriousness of sexual abuse (as does making false allegations, I know). I agree the revelations could be causing others to feel braver about reporting. It happened here once the church abuse revelations started to trickle out.

As for the money: it would pay for counselling - an expense that may not be required were it not for the abuse. It would relieve financial pressure - and one less thing to worry about is deserved, given all the stress and turmoil. Doubtful they'd be living it up in Vegas or something.

Innocent until proven guilty though, and the accused definitely shouldn't be named. What a fecking circus.

Agree with everyone neither party should be named. It serves no purpose to name either party.

However, this isn't a policing issue it's a media issue. Police will always issue statements such as the one today,all they will confirm is things like "an 81 year old man has been questioned". Police never, as a matter of policy, reveal the names in the early stages like this.

So we're back to the medias role in all this and the question is "what purpose does it serve to reveal his identity?". Pre-Saville i'd say zero purpose other than to sell more papers. Post-Saville there is a case to be made that it can serve the public interest. It's a tenuous argument though - but in cases like Saville the media coverage did enable a lot to come forward who otherwise wouldn't have.

Still, i'm of the opinion neither party should be named in the Press and perhaps it will take a lawsuit from the likes of Roache (if innocent) to try bring about a change to this.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief · 01-05-2013 01:44PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

perhaps it will take a lawsuit from the likes of Roache (if innocent) to try bring about a change to this.

Well, he did once take The Sun to the high court for calling him "Boring" (bankrupting himself in the process).

So, heaven knows how he'll react to this.

Rascasse · 01-05-2013 01:45PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Still, i'm of the opinion neither party should be named in the Press and perhaps it will take a lawsuit from the likes of Roache (if innocent) to try bring about a change to this.

Why would there be a lawsuit from Roache? The media are reporting the truth. Unless there is a Chris Jeffries style character assassination there is no problem.

You are also assuming the information about his arrest hasn't come from his publicist and/or reputation management firm. From the way he was talking recently it seems he knew this was a distinct possibility and as soon as it happened a well prepared media plan would have swung into action.

123 LC · 01-05-2013 01:47PM

is it just me or have a lot of soap-stars been arrested lately for sexual assault?

Wossack · 01-05-2013 01:52PM

123 LC wrote: »

is it just me or have a lot of soap-stars been arrested lately for sexual assault?

you're a soap-star?

April O Neill · 01-05-2013 02:00PM

mikehammer67 wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1085437/corrie-star-arrested-over-sexual-assault

where's all this gonna end?

Think it's all a bit suspect at this stage.

Like, some are true, I'd say, but there has just been sooo many, it's a bit unbelieveable.

Mr.Crinklewood · 01-05-2013 02:04PM

Montroseee wrote: »

Feed him to the lions.

With food like that, no wonder Jonny Wilkinson made himself unavailable.

keano_afc · 01-05-2013 02:05PM

"Plain clothed police arrived and searched the stars house".

Looking for what exactly?

wonderfullife · 01-05-2013 02:07PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Why would there be a lawsuit from Roache? The media are reporting the truth. Unless there is a Chris Jeffries style character assassination there is no problem.

You are also assuming the information about his arrest hasn't come from his publicist and/or reputation management firm. From the way he was talking recently it seems he knew this was a distinct possibility and as soon as it happened a well prepared media plan would have swung into action.

Well for a start given police won't reveal his identity publically, it came from somewhere. If it did not come from his side of the fence, then there could be a potential lawsuit somewhere to stop the route it came from. Post-Levenson leaks from the police are not taken lightly.

On a wider issue, there has to be public interest in reporting these things. The public interest here is questionable. He's innocent until proven otherwise, he's 81 years old and high-profile and almost zero risk to public health or safety, and i'd question where the public interest lies here in revealing his identity.

Ray Palmer · 01-05-2013 02:07PM

Rascasse wrote: »

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.

It may be impossible to completely seal the information but it won't be as well known nor splashed on media coverage. Social media may well let the information get about to some but they are also charging people for doing this. Again it won't be in the papers, websites nor TV which is still how a lot of people get their information. This isn't super injunction stuff

The law in the UK allows this information out from the police and as such a credible source for all to believe. Media sites have been wrong a few times.

Duckworth_Luas · 01-05-2013 02:07PM

keano_afc wrote: »

"Plain clothed police arrived and searched the stars house".

Looking for what exactly?

Fancy clothes?

The Barefoot Pizza Thief · 01-05-2013 02:11PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Looking for what exactly?

A 1967 diary?

01-05-2013 02:13PM

What was the age of consent in 1967 out of interest?

Ash.J.Williams · 01-05-2013 02:16PM

In the 70's and 80's girls from 13+ were queuing up to f**k stars from music and TV. Remember all those hilarious groupie stories about led zep and the who and all our other favourite bands? well most of those girls were 14...the girls that f**d metallicas roadies to meet the band? 14....this is a massive hornets nest ...

Wattle · 01-05-2013 02:19PM

keano_afc wrote: »

"Plain clothed police arrived and searched the stars house".

Looking for what exactly?

Knickers from 1967.

annascott · 01-05-2013 02:37PM

46 years ago?? It is really hard to believe that anyone would take this seriously. There should be a closing date limit for reporting such things. I am shocked that Coronation Street bosses have suspended him.

I have no interest in Coronation Street or him, but arresting an 81 year old is just wrong.

D-FENS · 01-05-2013 02:46PM

annascott wrote: »

There should be a closing date limit for reporting such things.

Shall we say - lines close midnight on Friday?
Anything received after that won’t count but you may still be charged?..

bacon n eggs · 01-05-2013 02:48PM

but arresting an 81 year old is just wrong

If guilty, still wrong? I think not no matter what age, he didn't consider age did he?

ScumLord · 01-05-2013 02:53PM

annascott wrote: »

I have no interest in Coronation Street or him, but arresting an 81 year old is just wrong.

What age should we stop convicting people for crimes? Should we forget about the church scandal too? All those guys are pretty old now.

Just because someone's an OAP doesn't make them any less of a scumbag, if they are a scumbag.

bacon n eggs · 01-05-2013 02:53PM

Of course there are girls and boys of varying ages who follow bands actors etc., At a young age they know no different to them they are heros. I know I did things at 14 and younger that I wish a had a little bit of guidance on. At that age you are a child trying to act adult with more than likely regrets in the end. That is why the adult should not take advantage of situations they may find themselves in.

Duggys Housemate · 01-05-2013 03:06PM

Torchforks at dawn!!

Look, if everybody who had sex with teenagers just under the limit in 1960's is arrested, then the entire celeb culture of the time ( including many a Sir) would be in jail.

Omar187 · 01-05-2013 03:10PM

keano_afc wrote: »

"Plain clothed police arrived and searched the stars house".

Looking for what exactly?

Sh*t paedos hid maybe.?

HondaSami · 01-05-2013 03:22PM

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Torchforks at dawn!!

Look, if everybody who had sex with teenagers just under the limit in 1960's is arrested, then the entire celeb culture of the time ( including many a Sir) would be in jail.

''Mr Roache, 81, faces two allegations of raping the same 15-year-old girl in Haslingden, Lancashire, between April and July 1967''.

He was 35yrs at the time, she was 15yrs. Why would this girl now say he raped her?

Ann22 · 01-05-2013 03:27PM

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Fancy clothes?

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

01-05-2013 03:29PM

You have to admit though, he's in great nick for someone who's 81 :eek:.... looks like most others do in their early 60s.

Duggys Housemate · 01-05-2013 03:30PM

HondaSami wrote: »

''Mr Roache, 81, faces two allegations of raping the same 15-year-old girl in Haslingden, Lancashire, between April and July 1967''.

He was 35yrs at the time, she was 15yrs. Why would this girl now say he raped her?

I assume it's statuary.

mitosis · 01-05-2013 03:30PM

How is it possible he can be proven guilty? What evidence can possibly convict him?

Ann22 · 01-05-2013 03:32PM

HondaSami wrote: »

''Mr Roache, 81, faces two allegations of raping the same 15-year-old girl in Haslingden, Lancashire, between April and July 1967''.

He was 35yrs at the time, she was 15yrs. Why would this girl now say he raped her?

Isn't underage sex 'statutory rape'? I'd be curious to know if in this case is that what it is or was force used?

Chuck Stone · 01-05-2013 03:34PM

I heard rumours that Basil Brush was fond of the cubs.

KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

Comments