nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

mikehammer67

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

where's all this gonna end?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rascasse

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I assume it's statuary.

Statutory rape in the UK requires the child to be 13 or under I think.

mitosis wrote: »

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

There could be witnesses. In the Savile case there was talk of more than one adult 'interfering' with more than one child in his dressing rooms at top of the pops. Similar sort of thing could have happened at Granada.

Ann22

Rascasse wrote: »

Statutory rape in the UK requires the child to be 13 or under I think.

Surely it's under 16...the legal age of consent in the uk.

Hannibal Smith

I think its amazing how short sighted people are. Members of the catholic church here were held accountable for the rapes and abuses they carried out in the 60s. There was testimony from the victims and medical/psychiatric reports to support what they were saying.

Its the same here. Sex abuse victims find t so hard to admit what happened to them, some never do. It only takes one or two to get the whole ball rolling and encourage others to come out and tell their experiences.

The attitude by some is incredible, that a lot of people have to be making it up. Plenty said the same about the church, but it turned out a vast majority were telling the truth.

Its difficult enough to speak up, I hope a culture of skepticism doesn't silence victims again.

Rascasse

Ann22 wrote: »

Surely it's under 16...the legal age of consent in the uk.

From memory (a long time ago) we were taught that 16 is the age of consent, 14 and 15 year olds can knowingly consent even though it is not legal, but a 13 year old and younger cannot knowingly consent therefore it is automatically [statutory] rape.

[Deleted User]

Xavi6 wrote: »

Love that people call him Ken Barlow rather than his real name :pac:

You mean he's NOT Ken? Whe the hell is he then?

Bandito909

Get some a this Ken!!!
Attachment not found.

ScumLord

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Its difficult enough to speak up, I hope a culture of skepticism doesn't silence victims again.

It's not just the skepticism either, just publicly admitting that you were raped would be humiliating in itself. Even if you have evidence to back up what you're saying putting yourself out there and admitting what was done to you can't be easy.

[Deleted User]

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not just the skepticism either, just publicly admitting that you were raped would be humiliating in itself. Even if you have evidence to back up what you're saying putting yourself out there and admitting what was done to you can't be easy.

Being falsely accused of rape in public is humiliating. Even if you have evidence to back up the fact that you haven't done it.

Duggys Housemate

Rascasse wrote: »

From memory (a long time ago) we were taught that 16 is the age of consent, 14 and 15 year olds can knowingly consent even though it is not legal, but a 13 year old and younger cannot knowingly consent therefore it is automatically [statutory] rape.

nope. 16 is it.

RikkFlair

Who's gonna be next? All eyes turn to Roy Cropper.

Rascasse

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

nope. 16 is it.

I was wrong, it's 12 (not 13) and under for statutory rape. Sex with a 13-15 year old could be one of many crimes but not 'statutory' rape.

BBC:

The law presumes that when a girl is under 13 she is not mature enough to consent to sex. So even if a 12-year-old girl willingly has intercourse, as far as the law is concerned, she has not "consented" to it because legally she is not able to.

(This concept is similar to the age of criminal intent, which assumes that children under 10 cannot commit crimes because they do not understand what crimes are.)

The implication of the rule is that anyone who has sex with a girl under 13 is committing what is termed "statutory rape". There is no defence to this charge - even if a boy says the girl was willing or that he thought she was older than she was, it would not matter.

2nd source: Sexual Assault Referral Centre

The law is clear that anyone who has sex (or other sexual activity) with someone aged 12 or under will automatically be committing rape, sexual assault or causing sexual activity without consent. This is sometimes known as 'statutory rape', although this term does not exist in the UK legal system.

Edit: Roache is accused of nonconsensual sex with a child, not simply consensual sex with a child (which is bad enough).

Duggys Housemate

Rascasse wrote: »

I was wrong, it's 12 and under for statutory rape. Sex with a 13-15 year old could be one of many crimes but not 'statutory' rape.

BBC:

2nd source: Sexual Assault Referral Centre

Not useful to this case where he was 35. Its illegal.

Rascasse

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Not useful to this case where he was 35. Its illegal.

I wasn't suggesting it was useful to his case, I'm suggesting the opposite. He's accused for forcing a child to have sex not, as some have suggested, simply having sex with a willing teenager.

mikeym

Free the "Weatherfield One!"

NuckingFacker

mikeym wrote: »

Fcuk the "Weatherfield One!"

fyp. The reason he's in such good nick is that he never did a tap of work in his pampered life. I can't stand the lad, there's somthing of the night about him. He comes across as just too nicey nice.

mikehammer67

NuckingFacker wrote: »

fyp. The reason he's in such good nick is that he never did a tap of work in his pampered life. I can't stand the lad, there's somthing of the night about him. He comes across as just too nicey nice.

lot of assumptions there

i thought corrie was actually supposed to be a tough gig

Thrill

RikkFlair wrote: »

Who's gonna be next? .

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_5V7vNjVKdVI/SV6oWLAJPGI/AAAAAAABFiQ/glNYNOJW-jM/s288/headshot-landscape.jpg

smileyj1987

My life is over now ! My hero is now being villified !

NuckingFacker

mikehammer67 wrote: »

lot of assumptions there

i thought corrie was actually supposed to be a tough gig

No assumptions at all. I can't stand him.:) Never could. And like all sprightly pensioners, they've done feck all, that's why they're still sprightly.:)

ToddyDoody

I always thought he was a ****e school teacher

Gatling

Phil Mitchell has to be next

Ruudi_Mentari

Was probably just another one of those persistent advances, insisting until the girl felt she had no option but to eventually comply.

aka raaaaape....

Gatling

Ruudi_Mentari wrote: »

Was probably just another one of those persistent advances, insisting until the girl felt she had no option but to eventually comply.

aka raaaaape....

That or some bad bitch decided its easy money to cry rape

LordSutch

Then there's all the Rock, Pop, and Boy bands from the 60s & 70s . . . . . . . . .

Somebody else mentioned the (groupies) back in this thread.

Ruudi_Mentari

Gatling wrote: »

That or some bad bitch decided its easy money to cry rape

of course, but a lot of 'stars' really are egocentric besides a pal told me that's how most guys get laid, in his eyes.

So he's now a feminist who visits hookers... some juggling act

HondaSami

http://news.google.ie/news/url?ct2=en_ie%2F0_0_s_3_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNF7uKxGfkcsoyjPkl9ikd0plfC7yQ&cid=52778140325421&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fworld-news%2Feurope%2Fcorrie-star-bill-roache-charged-with-two-counts-of-rape-29236223.html&ei=3YGBUeihIcaS8gP2aw&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-6695874429170295979&ssid=w

''Coronation Street actor Bill Roache is to be charged with two counts of rape of a 15-year-old girl in 1967, the Crown Prosecution Service said''

"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged with two offences of rape relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1967."

Roache will appear at Preston Magistrates' Court on May 14''.

shopaholic01

HondaSami wrote: »

http://news.google.ie/news/url?ct2=en_ie%2F0_0_s_3_1_a&sa=t&usg=AFQjCNF7uKxGfkcsoyjPkl9ikd0plfC7yQ&cid=52778140325421&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fworld-news%2Feurope%2Fcorrie-star-bill-roache-charged-with-two-counts-of-rape-29236223.html&ei=3YGBUeihIcaS8gP2aw&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&bvm=section&did=-6695874429170295979&ssid=w

''Coronation Street actor Bill Roache is to be charged with two counts of rape of a 15-year-old girl in 1967, the Crown Prosecution Service said''

"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Roache to be charged with two offences of rape relating to a girl, aged 15, in 1967."

Roache will appear at Preston Magistrates' Court on May 14''.

Police were removing 'brown paper bags' of evidence. What evidence would relate to a crime in 1967?

HondaSami

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Police were removing 'brown paper bags' of evidence. What evidence would relate to a crime in 1967?

No idea, it's all a bit strange unless there is more that we don't know yet.
He once said he bedded over a thousand women, will he even remember this girl?

getzls

HondaSami wrote: »

No idea, it's all a bit strange unless there is more that we don't know yet.
He once said he bedded over a thousand women, will he even remember this girl?

He shagged so many that he wouldn't have got through them all if he had to ask them their ages.

Madam

getzls wrote: »

He shagged so many that he wouldn't have got through them all if he had to ask them their ages.

Is that meant to be funny?