Originally Posted by westendlass (Post 1056720)

I see from the news that Bill Roach (Ken Barlow) has been arrested. I'm starting to wonder whether the police are becoming a little over zealous in the aftermath of the Savile scandal. Why is it only now that people are coming forward pointing fingers. Surely, at least some of these people would have been investigated before now. Or maybe it was the culture of the time and as allegations such as these are now taken more seriously they are now being reeled in one by one! :cool:

Originally Posted by flashy (Post 1056728)

A lot of people DID report things at the time but the majority (as has previously been reported) of it was swept under the carpet

Originally Posted by Stanleymad (Post 1056737)

Apparently happened in the haslingden area according to news.

Originally Posted by entwisi (Post 1056743)

He used to live at the big house at the tesco roundabout ( now a restaurant ) so I guess it happened there.

The question I have is how the heck can they prove anything now. its not like they can prove DNA or physical evidence in any way this far down the line. As I see it, its his word against hers and in this country as we have innocent till proven guilty there is no way I see of a conviction. All I see in that case is a load of wasted money on prosecutions/police time.

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 1056752)

Another geriatric celeb accused of illegal activity with a female just under legal age.:rolleyes:

It looks increasingly likely that they are avoiding the politicians suspected of sodomising boys. (which I regard as even more offensive.).

The longer they take arresting just celebs, the more they hope you will be content that they have 'left no stone unturned'. They need to get moving boulders .

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056763)

Will one from me do?
Bill Roache arrested - ITV News

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1056766)

It is only better than nothing, just.
Do you not understand the responsibility of a thread starter?

Without a link to what is claimed, the site as well as the person is vulnerable to any consequences that may occur if the accusation turns out to be false.
Can I ask you now that you have placed a link on site to claim that responsibility?:)

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056768)

But she didn`t post one and is no longer online, that`s why I asked if one from me would do. And yes, what the hell, if that link is fake then i`ll take the blame.:)

Originally Posted by Retlaw (Post 1056767)

What gets me is that it happened over 46 years ago in Halsingden, yet the plod search his home in Winslow.
How come this is only just seeing the light of day, and the supposed accuser must now be in their 60's, sumats not right. Same with the weather man and Rolf.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1056794)

Roach live in the big house at lane ends at the bottom of Hassy, used to see him quite often when I lived there. Maybe its a case of money talking these days, especially if compensation sets in :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1056759)

Well as a male that has up to present never considered under age sex of any flavour, I don't consider sodomy or sex with an unwilling partner to be something normal folk would consider to be better or worse, both are taking advantage of the vulnerable.

I do notice however we have no solid link from the thread starter, should this hearsay continue?:confused:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056803)

At 81, doubtful if Barlows got much career left to shatter.:D

Originally Posted by westendlass (Post 1056809)

As I'm still new to the Internet, I'm still learning. I've yet to suss out things such as 'putting on a link. Might seem easy to anyone more experienced but I'm learning as I go. As to the 'hearsay' just flick on your television, it's all over the National news.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1056772)

I know she didn't post one, even after being asked to, the site should not be held responsible for her, your or my, ramblings but it is.

Strangely enough I prefer her ramblings to yours, there is an air of innocence, you just seem...
:)

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056827)

You don`t half get your knickers in a twist over something and nothing.:dummy2:http://www.developerbarn.com/community/help/smilieshttp://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/%...der=%220%22%3E

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056828)

worry when he gets a twist in your knickers :eek::confused:

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056827)

You don`t half get your knickers in a twist over something and nothing.:dummy2:

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1056831)

Maybe I do, but I don't consider you to be in anyway qualified to decide when they're in a twist or when I'm stating what needs to be said.
So might I suggest you get to know the site better before you even attempt to criticise?

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056832)

Wasn`t a critisism Less, just a light hearted jest to try to cheer you up. You seem to be in an extra grumpy mood today.:D

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1056834)

I am never in an extra grumpy mood.

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056801)

on the radio it said bill roach had been arrested but police hadnt released his name so what right have the press got in naming him if the police havnt ?

so thats two current coronation street starts unable to work now until this mess is sorted.It could go on for months if not years

if guilty then fair enough hang em high but if not their careers,lives and reputation have been shattered

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056835)

So all the other times I`ve been on here youve been in extra good moods?:)

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056839)

Agreed Accyman, I know of someone walking the streets of accrington right now who has been accused by two separate under 13 year old girls of rape, if I were to name him, would that be OK? of course not, So why can the press just because he`s famous?

Originally Posted by Michael1954 (Post 1056843)

The Crown Prosecution Service released Bill Roache's name to the media.

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056847)

Can none celebs be named if they have been charged?

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056851)

I was referring to more serious stuff than shoplifting accyman, plus going back donkeys years, may well be different now, have no idea.:confused:

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1056850)

Just thinking back to the claires law thread where it was discussed about releasing names of people that have only been accused. Perhaps if an accusation had got so far that they could have legally been named in the press, then they could be on the list.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056855)

Yeh mean Elvis is really dead?:eek:

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056858)

about as dead as a dildo mate

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056860)

Yeh will be telling me next theres no father christmas.

Originally Posted by entwisi (Post 1056743)

He used to live at the big house at the tesco roundabout ( now a restaurant ) so I guess it happened there.

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056876)

len fairclough actor was supposed to have fiddled with a little girls bits in a swimming pool if i recall correctly

i think he went on GMTV pleading his innocence

was a long time ago but im pretty sure tahts about right without googleing


i also cantthink of anything the len faircough actor was in after corronation street so maybe he was blackballed by the what would have been 3 channels then

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056849)

i didnt think people were named in the press until appearing in court.

for example papers would say john smith of make believe lane appeared in court on the 23rd of may 2013 accused of shoplifting

dont recall them saying john smith was charged today of shoplifting and will appear in court on the 23rd of may infact with all teh charges police make it would fill teh news paper so i guess only juicey ones get to go in the press

appologies to john smith if your name is john smith lol

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056862)

no iv seen him

white beard

red nose

fat

mind you it coulda been an alki he was in a charity shop but it was december

Originally Posted by yerself (Post 1056904)

In true cmonstanley style:

BBC News - Broadcaster Stuart Hall admits indecent assaults

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 1056794)

Roach live in the big house at lane ends at the bottom of Hassy, used to see him quite often when I lived there. Maybe its a case of money talking these days, especially if compensation sets in :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by yerself (Post 1056904)

In true cmonstanley style:

BBC News - Broadcaster Stuart Hall admits indecent assaults

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 1056909)

So he has done the 'honourable thing' - and removed the need for his victims to give evidence.
.

Originally Posted by DtheP47 (Post 1056927)

Honourable thing my arse Margaret !!!

I've just changed my selection on the Forts Arms Death Club from Kirk Douglas to Stuart Hall. I reckon he will top himself sometime soon.

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 1056929)

In Japan they 'fall on the sword' for a lot less.

Rolf Harris is in and out of a mental health clinic like a yo-yo.
Maybe he is hoping for some sympathy for his mental suffering:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 1056909)

PS blogs and alternative news sites some times accurately predict who will be the next arrest - you may get a bigger surprise soon.

Originally Posted by hassy rvr (Post 1056922)

He wasn,t living at Syke Side House at the time they are saying these incidents occurred,he lived in a bungalow behind the house first but I can,t recall that even being as early as the sixties.:confused:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056923)

Unless its me going simple, recall he lived in the big house in Oak Hill Park fer a while also?:confused:Doubt though if Halls done the honourable thing, probably evidence had him knackered n therefore yeh get a lesser sentence fer admission, Honourable -mugs maybe,but, I dont.

Originally Posted by hassy rvr (Post 1056922)

He wasn,t living at Syke Side House at the time they are saying these incidents occurred,he lived in a bungalow behind the house first but I can,t recall that even being as early as the sixties.:confused:

Originally Posted by mani (Post 1056954)

Well if they were right about Stuart hall being a kiddy fiddler then who knows how they can prove it

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1056976)

one thing that has crossed my mind when thinking about this is back in the 60's and 70's your uncle c ould pinch your bum and say wotcha fella or girl

these days it would be sexual abuse

if someone says you grabbed their bum in 1966 can you be charged in 2013 with sexual assault ?

im not saying this is what ken barlow has been accused of it just made me think of how years ago something would be innocent and friendly but now a serious crime

Originally Posted by DtheP47 (Post 1057085)

Nothing at all to do with innocent and friendly get real accyman. It's all about inapropriate acts, taking advantage by behaviour that denigrate, erode a persons self esteem and worth and if was out in the open would make most clear minded people feel uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1057100)

sorry didnt i make it clear i wasnt saying this was anything to do with ken roach infact i thought it was pretty clear i was pondering how it would be handled if something that was acceptable in 1970 was done in 1970 and complained about as a crime in 2013

a bit like how you used to be able to smack a child to punish it in 1970 you get done for GBH in 2013.If i did what my mum did to me to my kids i would be in prison but back then it was acceptable punishment to hit a child with a slipper

another example is tha tthese days if you take a picture of your child in teh baby bath you can end up in trouble with teh police where as people of my generation see them as embarrassing pictures your mom shows your girlfriend

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1057101)

No case to answer if it wasn`t a crime when it was done.

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1057103)

Just been having a look around and it seems in the UK you can be prosecuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1057107)

wow so i could be prosecuted for smoking underage depite it been legal to do so at 16 when i was 16 ?

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1057110)

Common sense says not, .

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1057114)

in a court system where a victims evidence was thrown out because it was too convincing...

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1057115)

Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by gpick24 (Post 1057110)

Common sense says not, an example I read while looking this up was, imagine abortion to become illegal, would everyone who has had an abortion or taken part be prosecuted. Most, if not all of us has done something in the past that is now illegal, travelling in a car without wearing seatbelt is a good example.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 1057123)

Depends on who's common sense, using an emotive subject such as abortion is extreme, even the unfortunate women that 'miscarry' will in technical terms have aborted!

Then again something as simple as a seat belt, is not a good example, like everything in life, these things happen.

Smoking illegally, wearing or not wearing a seat belt or even 'legally removing a child from your own body' cannot be used as examples compared to removing another persons childhood even IF they are willing partners, (I do have a proviso in this, if the child for example became pregnant by the actions of a child of the same age, should they both be condemned by society? God, back then in puberty just about everyone wanted to...).

Originally Posted by accyman (Post 1057117)

here you go.Sorry its teh sun but it made all teh papers not just the sun

'Perfect witness' just too good | The Sun |News

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 1056998)

Degree of decency my arse, Hes just after a lighter sentence.:rolleyes: I watched his denial a few months back.:rolleyes: