Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:17 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...hence my question previously on the Operation Yewtree - where are all the pop groups ?

Because the women will get called on their BS. They were there willingly, they probably needed to jump through half a dozen hoops to get close to the pop groups. They probably even needed to service the security guard before they even got close. They've probably bragged about the encounter dozens of times over the decades. If they claim abuse now, they'll get called on it.

It's really hard to imagine why women were offering it up to Ken Barlow, so they don't get called on it.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:52 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Because the women will get called on their BS. They were there willingly, they probably needed to jump through half a dozen hoops to get close to the pop groups. They probably even needed to service the security guard before they even got close. They've probably bragged about the encounter dozens of times over the decades. If they claim abuse now, they'll get called on it.

It's really hard to imagine why women were offering it up to Ken Barlow, so they don't get called on it.

But the current thinking is that even if its offered you on a plate, you as an adult do not accept it because you know its illegal, and its current thinking that all of these cases are being tried on, or attempted to be tried on - so an under-age groupie offering herself to a pop hero should, in theory, still be able to make a complaint and the DPP, according to recent proclamations, WILL proceed with charges even on one persons word.

The Scottish group must be sh1tting themselves every time there's a knock at the door...

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:41 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

]

The Nevermind cover has reasoning and is trying to make a point. The reasoning behind Blind Faith was just a bunch of words that have pretty much no relation with the image.

To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years.

Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:46 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

But the current thinking is that even if its offered you on a plate, you as an adult do not accept it because you know its illegal, and its current thinking that all of these cases are being tried on, or attempted to be tried on - so an under-age groupie offering herself to a pop hero should, in theory, still be able to make a complaint and the DPP, according to recent proclamations, WILL proceed with charges even on one persons word.

The Scottish group must be sh1tting themselves every time there's a knock at the door...

Most of the cases I've read the women have claimed complete innocence on their part, and most of them were over age as well.

On being under age I think most of the groups will use the excuse of the "passing the bouncer test". Most of the places where the parties were taking place will have been nightclubs where you had to be over 18. If a girl's managed to convince the bouncers that they were over 18 that was good enough for them.

I think most of the women so far coming to the media with their stories have been given a very, very easy ride. They are receiving total sympathy from the courts and the media and in most cases their versions of events are unchallenged and uncontested.

I don't think a 15 year old groupie who was willingly having sex with pop stars 30 years ago and is now trying to claim she's a victim will get quite such an easy ride.

If girls of 11 or 12 were involved, I think most of the guys will have emigrated to Brazil or Sri Lanki and changed their name a few times and make sure they're never seen in Britain again. But I tend to think most of those rumours were just total fiction anyway. Like when a pop star or athlete brags about bedding a few thousand women, and when it's worked out it'd mean they'd have needed to have been having a different woman every single day of their adult lives.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:12 am  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote: To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years. Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did. Well there's no need to worry, he didn't mind the exploitation. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/26/showbiz/nirvana-baby/ Although a prosecution lawyer would say that he was traumatised by the experience and cried for hours a day, every day after it happened. He was so affected he needed round the clock care from his parents for at least the next 5 years. They feel $1bn compensation should cover their pain.

Dita's Slot Meter wrote: To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years. Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did. Well there's no need to worry, he didn't mind the exploitation. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/26/showbiz/nirvana-baby/ Although a prosecution lawyer would say that he was traumatised by the experience and cried for hours a day, every day after it happened. He was so affected he needed round the clock care from his parents for at least the next 5 years. They feel $1bn compensation should cover their pain.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:45 am  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years.

Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did.

Neither of the above album covers are as offensive as "Virgin Killer" by The Scorpions.

Didn't the news reader, Julia Sommerville, have to fight a case when Boots reported her for having taken a photo of her naked daughter on the beach?

People with a twisted sexuality will always read more into what seems an incongruous image than the rest of us. Some get off on pictures of plaster casts, others of animals. You can't ban "Life on Earth" because to some pervert it's his "Debbie does Dallas".

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:31 am  

Jimmy Tarbuck will not be charged with any offence following his arrest as part of the larger Operation Yewtree investigation last April.

The CPS threw in the towel after admitting that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction after being accused of sexual abuse against "children" (ie more than one) in the 1970s, and yet even yesterday when interviewed in the press Tarbuck told them that he did not know the name of his accuser(s) nor would he ever, they remain anonymous not only from the public but also from the person whom they were accusing, presumably the past twelve months of legal fees are now borne by Tarbuck as he has no-one to accuse of false allegation ?

Its all rather unfair and a little worrying for all males, especially those who make their living as "celebrities".

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:51 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Jimmy Tarbuck will not be charged with any offence following his arrest as part of the larger Operation Yewtree investigation last April.

The CPS threw in the towel after admitting that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction after being accused of sexual abuse against "children" (ie more than one) in the 1970s, and yet even yesterday when interviewed in the press Tarbuck told them that he did not know the name of his accuser(s) nor would he ever, they remain anonymous not only from the public but also from the person whom they were accusing, presumably the past twelve months of legal fees are now borne by Tarbuck as he has no-one to accuse of false allegation ?

Its all rather unfair and a little worrying for all males, especially those who make their living as "celebrities".

Did I read somewhere that what he waaccused of took place back stage at Top Of the Pops in 1963? A programme that he has never been on and only started in 1964.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:58 am  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

Did I read somewhere that what he waaccused of took place back stage at Top Of the Pops in 1963? A programme that he has never been on and only started in 1964.

I don't know - the interview he gave earlier this week stated that he had not been told how many accusers had made statements, or who they were, or when they occurred, sounds very much like the "evidence" that led to his arrest last April and almost a years worth of investigation was based on a story or stories that didn't even pass a rudimentary test of reliability at the CPS.

Meantime he has been named, accused and had 12 months of hell trying to defend himself, not to mention the cost which cannot be recovered.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:06 pm  

...and in other news Dave Lee Travis is to face a new accuser at the re-trial which was arranged after two of the charges at his original trial were left unresolved, so thats another one who has suddenly realised "Thats the bloke who groped me thirty years ago", AND there's another new one who will give evidence but not be listed as a charge as its alleged to have happened abroad, she will instead be used as a character assassin - presumably she had not heard anything of the charges and trial previously either.

The CPS seem to be sticking their necks out on this one, if they fail again then christ knows what they'll drag up for the next celeb...