Sex Offenters in the British Entertanment industry
 

Just this morning, BBC headlines include articles on allegations against DLT, Rolf Harris and William Roache. Following the Jimmy Saville scandal (and I know there were plenty others following that) do you Brits feel there is an end in sight or is there a lot more to come out? Oh Stuart Hall was another one after JS....

Will there be anyone emerging from 1980s children's TV/Light entertainment unscathed? Noel Edmonds? (OMG just looked him up, he's 65, now I feel even older! But he seems clean so far. Mike Read too, on both counts)

I honestly can't say I feel any surprise about most of those accused, but then weren't all 80s CTV presenters a little sketch? It was kind of the style of the moment, a hint of lasciviousness (OK I know Roache was not a CTV guy or lascivious, but most of them were at some point.)

Have any lessons been learned, or will they? Is this a reflection of the generation? Should we have cared more? Is it something that has always gone on and always will or is it a bandwagon of not-all-innocent limelight seekers? or do we still not care very much?

It's no wonder we're so screwed up. Wonder if I could sue? ;)

Possibly worth remembering that just a few weeks ago, the lead singer of the Lost Prophets was convicted of child sex charges, including the attempted rape of a baby (with the active involvement of two of the mothers, fans of his, who were also jailed).

There is now an inquiry as to why police officers, when approached with information about his activities, rather than following up on those allegations (along with apparent email communications as evidence) threatened the woman who brought them with harassment charges because she wouldn't go away.

This wasn't happening in the 70s or 80s, but as recently as 18 months ago or thereabouts.

So, no. I don't think anything has changed particularly.

Bruce Forsyth, no!!!!









~ i said this last thread 'round ~

Ginger: Ah! My Second World War Nazi atrocity book came at last. [turns to Youngman, dog in her lap, and browses the book]
Ginger: Do you know what Bitsy and I do? We sit down and imagine all those atrocities being done to sex criminals. - Yes, sex criminals and the like. And that Dr. Thorndike!
Guy: [overhearing] What's that, Ginge? Bill Thorndike a sexy criminal?
Ginger: The man you sent me to. He behaved VERY strangely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps there's a reportage effect. A bit like every time a superstar has a new song make the charts, all their old ones climb back up a little, hanging on to the coat tails.

Still, that was quite a slew in the top stories listing this morning :/

I wonder if the beards are relevant?

Must be all those sexy kids

Reminds me of a Frankie Boyle joke:

Why do paedophiles always have beards and glasses? What is it about that look that children find so sexy?

Just on the Ian Watkins case, he pleaded down from rape to attempted rape, but reading between the lines the attempt was sickeningly successful. He was identified by his tattoos in that video.

Oh and the woman who blew the whistle was sadly a bit of a fruitloop [professional medical jargon there], an attention seeker and she kept up a relationship with him long after dirty great big red flags were being raised. She later claimed she did this to obtain evidence, but continued to contact the police with little more than hearsay.

The sad thing is she was telling the truth despite her own problems.
Your average pillar of the community who is a school Governor and makes their own yoghurt and rakes their lawn every day in Autumn doesn't tend to get involved with sick fucks like Watkins. So if that's the sort of person the criminal justice system were waiting to come forward, they would still be waiting now.

I suspect that this sort of thing is rampant across any industry that affords large amounts of influence and access to vulnerable victims.

I don't think it's a pedophile problem either, as such. I think it's a problem of psychopathy. Savile went for anyone vulnerable. Young boys and girls, coma patients, the recently deceased.

I think it's always been the case that this stuff went on. I think it's always been the case that these kinds of people find others of a similar ilk and form loose 'rings' of offending and covering up.

I see what you did

difference between oral sex and anal?

oral sex can make your day

anal can make your hole weak.

Boooooooo. Call the joke police :P

pish posh
thats a funny one

irrespective of guilt or innocence (and I have my own opinions on some of them) it is a travesty to suddenly arrest anyone on allegations made for the first time today claiming an allegation of rape 50 (yes, fifty) years ago.
there is no evidence either way, no witnesses, nothing.
(In the case of Nazis arrested 50 years after there was a 50 year hunt and evidence preserved and affidavits taken at the time,)
in most of these cases in Britain there has been no accusation, no allegation, and nothing to investigate except a claim by someone who may, or not, be a victim, or a shit stirrer or not, or a frustrated blackmailer or not.
the only way to reach a verdict is on balance of probabilities or credibilities but these are criminal charges and therefore can only be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, probability is not allowed and that's all that exists in most of these cases.

even if some of the accused are guilty it now cannot be proved without a confession, so if they keep quiet they must legally be found not guilty and freed, anything else is an abuse of process.

it's likely on the publicity that one or two or more of these are guilty, but there are too many people being caught in a shotgun splatter of new accusations alleging god knows what god knows when, 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago whether there's a reason or not.
apart from anything else, if some cop demanded you provide an alibi for some random night 30/40/50+ years ago could you?
no fucking way, but we still look down on these celebs because they can't either. we deserve to be shit on by our legal system if we tolerate this.

top and bottom is that it's impossible to have a fair trial so guilty or not is irrelevant, it's still just a witchhunt.

Well, yeah. I agree, on some of them. But then again, some of them relate to alleged activity from fifty years ago to very recently (Will Roach, for example).

There are enough cases that suggest a degree of either active collusion in keeping victims silent, or incompetance, or lack of interest on the parts of different police authorities (and BBC authorities, and NHS authorities, and council/school authorities), to justify looking again at historic allegations. Some of these allegations have surfaced now for the first time, but many are repeats of allegations that were never followed up in the first place. Some may be people hopping on a band wagon. Some may be people finally having some expectation that they will be believed.

There are also some men who have been dragged into this nightmare, seemingly for very little reason.