Seeing as most of the celebrities arrested involving historical sex abuse claims appear to be staunch and fairly outspoken in the espousing of right-wing ideology, I'm just mulling if they have some form of collective defect link?

Sir Jimmy
Hairy Monster
Nick-nick Davidson
Ken Barlow
Tie me Kangaroo Harris

It's possibly sheer coincidence but could there be something in it?

Well thats a whole new can of worms



I think its more to do with the era they were popular in and male attitudes to females during that time - there was no equality and its probably too simple an explanation to say that some so-called "stars" thought that it was a perk of the job - will be interesting to hear what the stories are behind the accusers of DLT as some of the incidents occurred within BBC property, I wonder if Esther Rantzen knew about those too ?

One is supposed to have occurred live on Top of the Pops according to the BBC. Should be easy to prove one way of the other if the tapes still exist.

Raises an interesting point – and one that Jerry has raised more than a few times here.

If that incident was, say, a goosing, is it yet another illustration of how attitudes have changed over the last, say, 40 years?

And is it right to be prosecuting cases on the basis of changed attitudes in the here and now?

I personally think that that is a very dangerous road to go down, what is considered to be a sexual assault today was, in the 1970s, for some men at least (and not insignificant in number), a "playful" nip or pat on the which may or may not have earned them a slap on the face - often not.

At least one of the allegations mentioned on radio news today states that one of the accusers felt in fear of being raped in a dressing room, which is something more serious, but working in an office from 1974 with what was described as a "dolly bird" receptionist (how quaint), I can certainly confirm that if the same thing was occurring today she would have a huge list of complaints for sexual harassment from our electricians every time they came into the office - she didn't complain and gave as good as she got back to them, with hindsight I don't know whether she ever felt uncomfortable or in fear but she didn't show it if so.

And of course you yourself as a young hack know all about trying to break into an all male "club" and probably having to put up with verbal abuse that would get the offender sacked today ?

I'd just lock them up because of their politics altough I'd prefer Davidson deported.
Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

I completely agree.



I could count on the fingers of one hand (with fingers to spare) times when I ever personally faced such sh*t – and it really wasn't that bad, so let's not overdo how bad it was. As it happens, one was a bunch of tabloid hacks at a football match not doing their work but setting out to tell the sort of stories that were quite clearly intended to make me uncomfortable (not easy, but it was more the intention and less the stories themselves that did make me feel uncomfortable) and one was a football manager (a well-known one) treating me badly at a post-match press conference when I was the only hackette present.

But the other side of the coin is that the overwhelming majority of men that I dealt with as a female sports hack were respectful and helpful and absolutely fine.

Which is partly why – on an entirely personal level – I always struggle to deal with extrapolated stats on abuse, harassment etc – particularly as it is often portrayed as being regular and as most women facing it. The other reason being that, among all the women I know and have known, I am not aware of abuse having happened to them except in a single case.

I always thought he'd stomped off out of the country and gone to live in Dubai ?

Obviously found that a couple of years with no income in that part of the world is not maintainable ?

But then there's Stuart Hall (who did admit at least some of the claims against him).

He's apparently in C5's current Big Brother house.
I never knew, Ive been missing all his great jokes on a nightly basis.



Of his stay in the tax free haven of Dubai -
''I may as well go to Dubai and be an ethnic minority there than wait five years till I become one here'.

Certainly not the sort of thing you'd get from members of the Socialist Workers Party that's for sure!

Four of the Birmingham 6 admitted their guilt too.

Was Hall's guilty plea a genuine guilty plea because he was finally admitting what he'd done, or simply the choice of spending 8 months in jail rather than many years?

The main reason that the Birmingham 6 were released eventually was because of campaigning for years by dedicated lawyers and the media. I don't think the media exists today to overturn a miscarriage of justice.

I don't know whether Stuart Hall is guilty and deserves jail. I don't know whether Michael Le Vell is innocent and deserves his not guilty verdict. But I'm not sure anyone else knows either. Or cares.

I wonder how many men of a certain vintage are glad they aren't famous?

If operation Yewtree went looking at say senior managers in local council's or companies back then I bet they would soon have a list as long as they have with them targeting the celebs of the time.

That said you could argue we should not want to pardon the 300 odd first world war British soldiers who were shot by firing squad if we are going to accept things that happened back then did so because they reflect the attitudes of the time.

If we consider that wrong, why would we not want to prosecute alleged rapes because they occurred in the 70's and 80's?

I think the answer is with the men shot by firing squad it is a defined number many of whom were unjustly shot given what we know of their cases now whereas I can't help feeling there must be hundreds of men who behaved in the working environment no differently to the likes of DLT and he and other celebs are only being charged because they are celebs.

By that I am not saying it was routine for men to commit the more serious offences DLT has been charged with but it certainly wasn't uncommon for the odd grope to happen. Maybe being famous the likes of DLT had far more women hanging around to give him the opportunity and while that is no excuse for assault I don't think it necessarily means he was any more of a sexual predator than those senior managers I alluded to.

I also think it is a matter of degree. Jimmy Savile was on a different level compared to the list of offences DLT has been charged with and I am not sure it is in the public interest to be trying someone who grabbed someone boob and said "securi-titty" as one of the charges. Stick to the alleged rape and more serious allegations if you are going to do it at all.

Very good point, succinctly made.

It's a very interesting question.

I think one of the differences is the evidence or lack of it.

One of the things that concerns me about the current situation on sex abuse cases is that of evidence. There will be no forensic evidence, no records etc, nobody will have alibis that can be checked – so it simply comes down to one person's word against another's.

And I agree with the rest of your post.

I think people do care. The social media storm after the verdict, where people were either claiming that he must be guilty, irrespective of the verdict, because the woman must be believed, or the opposite of that, that the woman should be (in effect) hung, drawn and quartered etc etc.

And the former – that the woman (because that is how it is always talked about) should be automatically believed – is a growing view: and a very dangerous one, IMO.

In the case of Stuart Hall, it was multiple people's word against his. Many victims came forward telling the same broad story of his abuse, none of whom knew each other.

Had it been just 1 victim, I doubt it would have gone as far as it did.

This is my concern also. I can't remember what I was doing last week half the time so how the accused are going to disprove the allegations I really don't know.

I suppose being the celebs they are what they were doing or where they were working may well be a matter of record but that can be used against them to place them where the alleged offences took place. It would only help them if it placed them elsewhere at the time of the alleged offences so DLT working on Top of the Pops is already circumstantial evidence he was where one of the offences is alleged to have taken place whether he has any recollection of the time or not.

Unless they can uncover a tape of that film of him committing the offence on Top of the Pops I can't see how this is anything other than his word against that of his accusers.

I'm just wondering how many ageing Rockers who had ther heydays in the 60's & 70's are squirming?
Then, to have your pick of 'groupies' was considered a perk of the job.
OK, any possible complaint now would be defended as consensual sex, but again, without firm proof (e.g. DNA evidence from any resulting offspring), it's down to one word against another.

There's also the stigma to consider... Would any successful, respectible mature lady ever wish to rake up and air their past lifestyle in public?

They did. they played it to the jury.

What song was playing at the time?
Did the behaviour fit the song or was it totally inappropriate?
lol

Oddly enough nobody that I know has identified the clip other than it was apparently from 1978.

1978?



[iSometimes When We Touch[/i - Dan Hill ?

Admittedly I only heard a brief news report, but it seemed to say that the girl's face had a different expression after the alleged offence. How can that be classed as "evidence"?

If that's the case, it would be deeply worrying if it was considered as evidence.