Ken Barlow from 'Corrie'......

Harsh matey but you could have a point. I always say if they are not after money but justice then they will have no problem in giving the money to charity

I had this discussion with the mother in law last night, she is now the same age as "the victim" that was the only explanation she could think of and i agreed. she said back in the 60's young girls (not talking kids here, lets be clear!) would throw them selves at famous folk. My money is on the woman is jumping on the media bandwagon and hoping for a payout or sell her story to some trashy magazine. sorry if that offends anyone, but thats my genuine opinion of this particular story.
 
I had this discussion with the mother in law last night, she is now the same age as "the victim" that was the only explanation she could think of and i agreed. she said back in the 60's young girls (not talking kids here, lets be clear!) would throw them selves at famous folk. My money is on the woman is jumping on the media bandwagon and hoping for a payout or sell her story to some trashy magazine. sorry if that offends anyone, but thats my genuine opinion of this particular story.

I think you might be right however they wouldn't push this to court if they didn't have some compelling evidence available. Either way there's going to be some v shameful and embarrassing moments ahead for Mr Roach.

They might as well shut Corrie down for a few years until all the cast gets out of Nick! :o
 
I think you might be right however they wouldn't push this to court if they didn't have some compelling evidence available. Either way there's going to be some v shameful and embarrassing moments ahead for Mr Roach.

They might as well shut Corrie down for a few years until all the cast gets out of Nick! :o

Well fundamentally, its rape. she was 15. however, did he know she was 15? crikey look around the world today and look at 15 year olds (be careful!) If i were a younger man and single, i can see how you could end up in some hot water!!
 
I had this discussion with the mother in law last night, she is now the same age as "the victim" that was the only explanation she could think of and i agreed. she said back in the 60's young girls (not talking kids here, lets be clear!) would throw them selves at famous folk. My money is on the woman is jumping on the media bandwagon and hoping for a payout or sell her story to some trashy magazine. sorry if that offends anyone, but thats my genuine opinion of this particular story.

I know what you mean mate, I am not meaning in cases like Stuart Hall where one of the victims was just 9 years old, him I would lock him up and throw the key away. With regards to Barlow I will be very interested to know all the facts. One of the celebs that was incriminated in this was accused of sexual abuse his was crime was putting his hand up someones skirt 35 years ago, not saying it is right but the only reason the victim made the complaint has got to be financial gain
 
Some pretty unpleasant posts in this thread. You guys have no idea what did or didn't happen and yet are doing the usual blame the victim nonsense. Rape is an appalling crime that is still not treated properly by the authorities and certainly wasn't back then. It'll come out in court and until then you should maybe restrain yourselves a bit.
 
Some pretty unpleasant posts in this thread. You guys have no idea what did or didn't happen and yet are doing the usual blame the victim nonsense. Rape is an appalling crime that is still not treated properly by the authorities and certainly wasn't back then. It'll come out in court and until then you should maybe restrain yourselves a bit.

Sorry FD, but Bill Roach himself said that these cases everyone should remain anonymous until court and i agree, because it does open up discussions like these, nit just on forums but everywhere including the press who are sat around waiting for the next "i got touched by a celeb story in the 60's". so speculation is whats going to happen. from a womans point of view can you answer me this, if the "victim" was you and it was 45 years ago, why would you only make a complaint now? answer that one...
 
Sorry FD, but Bill Roach himself said that these cases everyone should remain anonymous until court and i agree, because it does open up discussions like these, nit just on forums but everywhere including the press who are sat around waiting for the next "i got touched by a celeb story in the 60's". so speculation is whats going to happen. from a womans point of view can you answer me this, if the "victim" was you and it was 45 years ago, why would you only make a complaint now? answer that one...

seriously! your 'victim' is still a victim be it two hours two years twenty years ago. I would suggest you read up on victim support websites for information.
 
seriously! your 'victim' is still a victim be it two hours two years twenty years ago. I would suggest you read up on victim support websites for information.

Innocent until proven guilty, i am just sharing my theory.

why wait 45 years though? that is the question i am asking.
 
As FD says some very unpleasant attitudes being displayed here. Some people are only just stopping short of accusing the victim of "asking for it".
We none of us can imagine the traumatic effect of the type of offence alleged here so it is, therefore, pointless to ask why it has taken so long for a formal complaint to be made.
It could well be that the publicity surrounding Savile has led to the victim in this case finally having the mental strength to come forward. As I say we don't know but to suggest that potential compensation is at the heart of it is, to me, offensive and naive,
After all this is a criminal rather than civil case and even a successful prosecution may well not lead to any compensation being paid to the victim.
 
Well lets agree to disagree and reconvene after the court case for a whole load of I told ya so's from one side of the argument!
 
that's your view on things, whats your thoughts on the alleged victims of Mr Saville who is dead.

Very different, they were not a 15 year old girl first of all. I could list a raft of things how the cases are very very different. Anyhow, I have obviously upset enough people on this thread so will leave it until the court case has finished until I comment again.
 
Sorry FD, but Bill Roach himself said that these cases everyone should remain anonymous until court and i agree, because it does open up discussions like these, nit just on forums but everywhere including the press who are sat around waiting for the next "i got touched by a celeb story in the 60's". so speculation is whats going to happen. from a womans point of view can you answer me this, if the "victim" was you and it was 45 years ago, why would you only make a complaint now? answer that one...

I'd have known that the chances of being believed were very slim, and the chances of a conviction practically non-existent. Maybe I was too traumatised by my ordeal and didn't want to relive it. Maybe I wouldn't want to risk my rapist defending himself in court and cross examining me and humiliating me all over again. But perhaps in light of recent events I'd think the situation has improved and I will be taken seriously. I'd be wrong, of course, as you continue to demonstrate.
 
Has it been confirmed anywhere that the reason he has been arrested is because she was under the age of consent? But it was consensual?
Because if not that is an enormous leap to make.
 
Not saying you would be wrong FD, thank you for your answer and I can see and respect your point. Lets just see what happens in court.
 
Top