KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

mike65 · 02-05-2013 11:09AM

Rascasse wrote: »

And today Stuart Hall, also in his 80's, from Wilmslow, a TV personality and charged with a sex offence from 1967 (amongst others up until the 80's) pleaded guilty in court.

Roache and Hall co-own a pubishing company with Blackpool FC owner Owen Oyston who was convicted of raping a 16 year old model in the 90's.

Not saying that Hall and Roache's alleged offences are linked, but it's a bit of a coincidence. And as for both being in business with a convicted rapist............

Interesting, I knew about Oyston that linkage certainly looks bad.

paddy147 · 02-05-2013 02:49PM

Rascasse wrote: »

And today Stuart Hall, also in his 80's, from Wilmslow, a TV personality and charged with a sex offence from 1967 (amongst others up until the 80's) pleaded guilty in court.

Roache and Hall co-own a pubishing company with Blackpool FC owner Owen Oyston who was convicted of raping a 16 year old model in the 90's.

Not saying that Hall and Roache's alleged offences are linked, but it's a bit of a coincidence. And as for both being in business with a convicted rapist............

Maybe thay are all part of The Super Adventure Club.....:pac::pac:

Hootanany · 02-05-2013 03:46PM

Xavi6 wrote: »

Was Stuart Hall ever in Corporation Street? :pac:

Stuart was a decent footballer himself; in fact he played with me when I was a kid.

Tombo2001 · 02-05-2013 03:54PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

He has and is suffering for the allegation already, regardless of his guilt. If the case fails due to lack of evidence it difficult to say that he is 'proven' innocent. I am not sure what good a trial by media adds to the legal process.

Nothing, other than the time it has taken for the allegation to be brought. It would stand to reason that there would be more tangible evidence for a case involving a suspected rape from a week or a month ago than one from forty-six years ago.

That applies to anybody who has a case brought against them......

I take your point on the Trial by Media....

To be honest, what I have a bigger problem with is the posters passing comment on the person who has brought the case......implications that she is a gold digger etc.

And it is very interesting that the natural reaction of a lot of people here is "poor ken".....why is that?

If the charges are true, then we are talking about a woman who has been living with a horrendous incident hanging over her life for 45 years, meanwhile seeing the guy who did it on the telly every other day isince then and being feted as a star.....if its true......thats what courts are there to decide.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief · 02-05-2013 04:50PM

If it's statutory rape then this could open the floodgates for those who became pregnant at 15 and want to get back at an ex.

In the 60's it was very common to get pregnant at that age. Sure marriage at 16 was very very common, if not the norm back then. This all seems crazy.

Mandy Smith doesn't seem to have unfairly played the statutory rape card, much to Bill Wyman's replied I don't doubt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

Norwesterner · 02-05-2013 05:00PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

nah he's gay and dead

There are gay paedos too you know.

Rascasse · 02-05-2013 05:15PM

The Barefoot Pizza Thief wrote: »

If it's statutory rape then this could open the floodgates for those who became pregnant at 15 and want to get back at an ex.

In the 60's it was very common to get pregnant at that age. Sure marriage at 16 was very very common, if not the norm back then. This all seems crazy.

Mandy Smith doesn't seem to have unfairly played the statutory rape card, much to Bill Wyman's replied I don't doubt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

It's not statutory rape unless the child was 12 or under. If the father to any child born to an under 16 year old was 18 or under himself at the time he'd unlikely be prosecuted as there is little public interest in it.

As Roache is charged with rape he is accused of forcing the girl into having sex against her will, not simply because she was under age.

I remember when Wyman and Smith got married, very seedy. I'd say Bill Wyman looked after Mandy very well after their divorce.

irishjig69b · 03-05-2013 08:22AM

1967 really? FFS.....

mike65 · 03-05-2013 09:47AM

irishjig69b wrote: »

1967 really? FFS.....

What are you trying to say? That a rape incident over a certain number of year old is not worthy of justice?

syklops · 03-05-2013 10:19AM

mike65 wrote: »

What are you trying to say? That a rape incident over a certain number of year old is not worthy of justice?

I don't speak for that poster but I would imagine their surprise is along the following:

Evidence will be hard to get/prove/verify
The case will boil down to he said/she said
It was nearly 50 years ago. Finding witnesses or getting people to come forward is a challenge when the crime happened to a regular Joe a week ago, finding real witnesses for a 50 year old crime will be hard. I say real witnesses because while detectives are scouring for people who might have seen the defendant with the accuser, elderly loonies will be queuing up outside all wanting to be the key witness in the trial of the century.

irishjig69b · 03-05-2013 10:39AM

mike65 wrote: »

What are you trying to say? That a rape incident over a certain number of year old is not worthy of justice?

No course not, what I ment was why wait this long, hard to believe

mike65 · 03-05-2013 10:43AM

irishjig69b wrote: »

No course not, what I ment was why wait this long, hard to believe

Why did so many teenagers keep quiet? Cos they were teenagers and he was a famous man on the telly/radio. See Jimmy Savile. The girls grow up and hope to get on with their lives I guess as the years pass, then a chance comes along and they get some confidence to speak up. Its a complex dynamic.

irishjig69b · 03-05-2013 10:51AM

mike65 wrote: »

Why did so many teenagers keep quite? Cos they were teenagers and he was a famous man on the telly/radio. See Jimmy Savile. The girls grow up and hope to get on with their lives I guess as the years pass, then a chance comes along and they get some confidence to speak up. Its a complex dynamic.

Thanks for clearing that up

paddy147 · 03-05-2013 11:14AM

irishjig69b wrote: »

1967 really? FFS.....

Rape is rape regardless of the year or time..

Do the crime,then do the time....regardless of the time gap

Arawn · 03-05-2013 11:29AM

paddy147 wrote: »

Rape is rape regardless of the year or time..

Do the crime,then do the time....regardless of the time gap

Nope statute of limitations is a real thing

Rascasse · 03-05-2013 11:34AM

Arawn wrote: »

Nope statute of limitations is a real thing

Watching too many TV shows. No statute of limitations in the UK except for civil torts.

RandomName2 · 03-05-2013 11:48AM

mike65 wrote: »

Why did so many teenagers keep quite? Cos they were teenagers and he was a famous man on the telly/radio. See Jimmy Savile. The girls grow up and hope to get on with their lives I guess as the years pass, then a chance comes along and they get some confidence to speak up. Its a complex dynamic.

Jimmy Saville was relatively quite powerful and was firmly ensconced in the institution of the BBC. He was also a public figure in relation to charity organisations. The reason for the recent revelations concerning his crimes is due to his death!

The Catholic Church in Ireland was exceptionally powerful and cases concerning its abuses only emerged as it declined.

The same could not, presumably, be said of an actor in Coronation Street. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any reason for 'why now' other than perhaps Ken Barlow's recent interview.

Tombo2001 · 03-05-2013 03:13PM

syklops wrote: »

Excuse me I never denied child sex abuse was happening, and I have never in my life said the phrase "poor priests".

Can you explain why this person waited 46 years to come forward?

No I cant.

Can you explain to me why you need an explanation?

Does the Jimmy Saville case not show you in bright banner headlight terms that child abuse is often reported several decades after it take place.

Tombo2001 · 03-05-2013 03:22PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Jimmy Saville was relatively quite powerful and was firmly ensconced in the institution of the BBC. He was also a public figure in relation to charity organisations. The reason for the recent revelations concerning his crimes is due to his death!

The Catholic Church in Ireland was exceptionally powerful and cases concerning its abuses only emerged as it declined.

The same could not, presumably, be said of an actor in Coronation Street. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any reason for 'why now' other than perhaps Ken Barlow's recent interview.

The obvious why now is that the Jimmy Saville case has opened the floodgates.

The truth seems to be that sex with minors was something that was common place amongst celebrities of the day, particularly musicians, and that rock stars and celebrities of the day took advantage of their position, and I'd be delighted to see a lot of the people involved face the consequences.

I thought this quote from Peter Yarrow was interesting:

"In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of, and served three months in prison for, taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old female fan. He has since apologized for the incident: "It was an era of real indiscretion and mistakes by categorically male performers. I was one of them. I got nailed. I was wrong. I'm sorry for it."

I'd have been quite a big rock music fan in my younger days, and without naming names, I read a lot of books about bands who were big in the 1960s and 1970s; and inevitably a part of the rock and roll lifestyle was access to groupies. Many of these were underage. When you read the books, it was all just a big laugh.......but it clearly wasnt, it shouldnt have been allowed to happen.

Norwesterner · 03-05-2013 05:05PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The obvious why now is that the Jimmy Saville case has opened the floodgates.

The truth seems to be that sex with minors was something that was common place amongst celebrities of the day, particularly musicians, and that rock stars and celebrities of the day took advantage of their position, and I'd be delighted to see a lot of the people involved face the consequences.

I thought this quote from Peter Yarrow was interesting:

"In 1970, Yarrow was convicted of, and served three months in prison for, taking "improper liberties" with a 14-year-old female fan. He has since apologized for the incident: "It was an era of real indiscretion and mistakes by categorically male performers. I was one of them. I got nailed. I was wrong. I'm sorry for it."

I'd have been quite a big rock music fan in my younger days, and without naming names, I read a lot of books about bands who were big in the 1960s and 1970s; and inevitably a part of the rock and roll lifestyle was access to groupies. Many of these were underage. When you read the books, it was all just a big laugh.......but it clearly wasnt, it shouldnt have been allowed to happen.

Thats true.
Do you think our modern day boybands aren't doing the same and taking advantage of minors (who may look quite mature)
Will we see arrests in 20 years time of the likes of Boyzone, Westlife, Take That, Blue????
I think it's quite possible.

Rascasse · 03-05-2013 05:15PM

I wouldn't be so sure. Boy bands and pop stars have had minders to stop that sort of thing for a while now. Anyone from the eighties back are probably sweating, though.

RandomName2 · 03-05-2013 05:21PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The obvious why now is that the Jimmy Saville case has opened the floodgates.

What, was Jimmy Saville protecting him? :rolleyes:

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The truth seems to be that sex with minors was something that was common place amongst celebrities of the day, particularly musicians, and that rock stars and celebrities of the day took advantage of their position, and I'd be delighted to see a lot of the people involved face the consequences.

The topics of statutory rape and retrospective moralism are both off topic afaics.

But an actor in a 1960s soap opera being compared to rock-stars. Really?

Luxie · 03-05-2013 06:34PM

paddy147 wrote: »

So whos next to be charged with kiddy fiddling from Corrie Street?

1st was Kevin Webster
2nd was Ken Barlow

So whos next?

Roy perhaps?

Or maybe Maurice???

My money's on Hayley.

Fighting Irish · 03-05-2013 06:41PM

I may get a job on corrie

Neeson · 06-06-2013 06:22PM

Charged today. Will he be back on Corrie I wonder.

syklops · 07-06-2013 09:56AM

Neeson wrote: »

Charged today. Will he be back on Corrie I wonder.

Not until he has been found innocent, Im afraid. Even if he settles out of court I doubt they will take him back.

mike65 · 17-06-2013 06:00PM

Stuart hall who pleaded guilty (to 13 charges I think) has been sentenced to 15 months, however the AG has already been prompted to take a look at it on grounds of undue leniency.

Zebra3 · 17-06-2013 06:10PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

What, was Jimmy Saville protecting him? :rolleyes:

No, probably not, but previously victims thought these celebs were untouchable and that they (the victims) wouldn't be believed.

The (sadly belated) exposure of Savile has given these people the courage to come forward.

Neeson · 17-06-2013 06:39PM

15 months is very short, ain't it?

Would it be because he is so old and will be dead soon or what?

KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

Comments