Never thought Tarbuck was funny.

[Glamrocker]

There you go again, blaming anyone but the abuser. Let the abuser take responsibility for their abuse, no one else

But of course they dont do it for the money do they:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505

[Suffragette1]

But of course they dont do it for the money do they:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505

 

Oh yes, I am sure they were begging to be raped and abused to put in a claim 30 years later. Good luck to them, they deserve every penny they get and more.

[barpen]

did we really think that they were whiter than white or did we not really think about them at all?

 

Non of them were whiter than white. In the 1970s if you went to any show or gig the groupies (usually 13-15 year olds) would hang around the stage door wanting a piece of the celebrity. 40 years down the line there are a lot of 55 year old's claiming assault.

[Strix]

What disturbs me is how wide the big fuzzy grey line is between a mid-teen fawning for a bit of attention from a celebrity (and let's face it, how many teens THINK they'd do it for their favourite member of a boy band now?), and an adult celeb forcing themselves on a reluctant admirer

 

It's a massive jar of worms. I despise what Savile is/was. I suspect some celebs have been young and stupid (teens themselves, and lied to about age), but it really is becoming evident that 'corporate culture' played a big part in all of this

 

The world was a different place then, but there were still limits

[mikem8634]

But of course they dont do it for the money do they:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505

 

Do you assume that any victim of any crime who subsequently claims for compensation did it for the money? Do you reserve these aspersions for victims of sexual crimes or do you doubt those who have been violently assaulted as well?

 

There is a world of difference between legitimately pursuing compensation and doing it for the money.

[anywebsite]

Can't assume that all the accused are guilty, that's why we have courts to try to decide, unfortunately some people do make false accusations.

 

When there are multiple independent victims with similar stores then it seems very likely they aren't all making it up.

[janie48]

At any trial, there will be plenty of opportunity for the judge to guide the jury regarding what is or isn't admissable. It might be hard to get a fair trial but I don't think it's impossible.

 

However, if people are found not guilty or if they are not even charged and there isn't a trial at all (because the police decide there is no case to answer or because there is not enough evidence for the CPS to proceed) then they will still be seen by many as guilty but not punished. What's left of their careers will be ruins, regardless.

 

I'm in two minds about this.. The naming of Stuart Hall, after arrest following just one complaint, led to others coming forward, and ultimately resulted in a conviction which probably wouldn't have happened without the publicity. Conversely, publicised arrests that lead to nothing will still hurt someone who has never been found guilty of anything. Although not comfortable with this, on balance I think I come down in favour of publicising arrests. But if it comes to nothing, then we should be more accepting of the fact that the person has not been found guilty of anything.

Do bare in mind that being in two minds about anything doesn't go down too well with some members of SF, you are expected to be totally on one side or another with no in between.

 

I share a similar perspective on this as you do.

In general a trial by public opinion fuelled by media speculation makes me feel very uncomfortable, but in view of what we now know from what as been revealed lately, it does appear that the Police would not take the decision to apply for a case of this nature to go to trial without having a great deal of evidence.

 

Previously I was against naming people accused in cases that go back decades, but if the procedure acts as a deterrent to prevent future rape incidents, abuse of power from famous people, and a change in the complacent attitude of those people who previously turned a blind eye to what they were aware of and said nothing, then hopefully much good will come out of this course of action.

[Vague_Boy]

Afterall, LeVell, despite 19 charges against him pleads innocent.

 

I think that there's more to the criminal justice system than a simple game of numbers.

 

The Birmingham Six were charged with 21 counts of murder.

 

Whoops, turns out they were all innocent.

 

I'm sure you'd have had them dangling on the end of a rope purely based on the length of the charge sheet.

 

"He's guilty, look at him. Eyes too close together. And look at that one, his hair's too long".

 

[johncocker]

Oh yes, I am sure they were begging to be raped and abused to put in a claim 30 years later. Good luck to them, they deserve every penny they get and more.

 

 

I agree good luck to them if it was genuine but

30 to 40 years ago things might have been a little bit different.

 

interersting article here from from the tele/

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9242648/BBC-Play-School-presenters-went-on-air-stoned.html

The corridors of Television Centre often reeked of the class B drug as BBC employees and visiting pop groups regularly smoked joints.

On one occasion, Rick Jones and Lionel Morton, presenters of Play School, got stoned before filming the children’s programme, it is claimed.

As well as drugs, the BBC was apparently also a hot bed of sex with staff “bonking all over the place”.

...

Joan Bakewell, the presenter, said visiting pop stars would often smoke cannabis at Television Centre.

She said: “Of course they smoked and they didn't smoke ordinary cigarettes.”

Sir David Attenborough, the wildlife presenter and former BBC TWO controller, recalled pleading with colleagues: “Look, please, don’t smoke that stuff openly so we can all smell it. Just be sensible.”

Other stars disclosed that staff used their dressing rooms for sexual liaisons.

Former Doctor Who actress Katy Manning, who played Jo Grant, said: “People were bonking all over the BBC. Everybody was doing it on the premises.”

Janet Fielding, who played the Doctor’s sidekick Tegan, added: “Nobody cared whether you had sex in your dressing room.”

Sounds just like the schools, theatres, universities and offices I worked in at the time.

Even in the 1990s one could watch a queue of young women mounting the firescape that led to the bands' dressing rooms at the local university. How they persuaded the roadies to let them in, or whether the roadies asked for proof of age, I cannot say.

 

---------- Post added 08-05-2013 at 05:06 ----------

 

What is it about middle of the road slightly naff entertainers?

Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter, Jonathan King, Jimmy Tarbuck.

 

yes strange isn't it ,might be the tip of the iceberg, I bet theres a lot of famous crinkled old rock n rollers from the 60"s AND 70's

 

quakeing in their rhinestone boots at the moment:hihi:

[MrSmith]

Saville abused children in care & in hospital. Not every child has a parent to protect them 24/7.

 

Yes and in these cases he was clearly given far too much access to children that were alone.

 

---------- Post added 08-05-2013 at 06:51 ----------

 

Maybe Mr Smith is referring to the type of parent who judges everyone by their one standards? What kind of parent leaves a child in the care of their neighbour, best friend, grandparent? Childminder, teacher, scout leader? Priest? Doctor? I mean where will it end? Bad parents.

 

Not sure what any of those has to do with a young child being alone in the dressing room of an entertainer.