KEN BARLOW ARRESTED!

mikehammer67

http://news.sky.com/story/1085437/corrie-star-arrested-over-sexual-assault

where's all this gonna end?

returnNull

in court probably

Montroseee

Feed him to the lions.

mikehammer67

deirdre won't be happy

Fukuyama

If he did it I hope he gets locked up for the rest of his life.

Innocent until proven guilty, however.

Frank Black

mikehammer67 wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1085437/corrie-star-arrested-over-sexual-assault

where's all this gonna end?

In the Rovers Return with everyone having a pint and a laugh at how this mis-understanding got out of hand.

mathie

mikehammer67 wrote: »

deirdre won't be happy

She's usually a barrel of laughs.

biko

I don't like it when I have to google people that get threads in AH.

bacon n eggs

That's why outspoken about Michael Le Vell

kylith

Whilst I obviously agree that rape is the most heinous of crimes, I feel somewhat conflicted about arresting a man based on an allegation of something that happened 45 years ago. I fail to see how jailing him could benefit anyone, or how the case could be proven to be anything other than 'he said, she said'.

furiousox

Possibly involved in the murder of Samir Rachid too.

Dravokivich

So much for the "Viva Ken Barlow," stickers that have been stamped everywhere.

SunnyDub1

I just don't understand why it has taking 46 years for her to report this

All seems a little strange. Innocent till proven guilty anyway.

mikehammer67

bacon n eggs wrote: »

That's why outspoken about Michael Le Vell

lol

they'll have to move production to strangeways if this keeps up:D

Xavi6

Love that people call him Ken Barlow rather than his real name :pac:

Duckworth_Luas

mikehammer67 wrote: »

where's all this gonna end?

The most fantastic Christmas cabaret ever held by HM Prison Service?

Xavi6

Xavi6 wrote: »

Love that people call him Ken Barlow rather than his real name :pac:

Dravokivich

Xavi6 wrote: »

Love that people call him Ken Barlow rather than his real name :pac:

It's not his name?

Doodoo

So does that make it 1001?

mathie

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

I just don't understand why it has taking 46 years for her to report this

All seems a little strange. Innocent till proving guilty anyway.

I hate to be one of those people but it's "In a cent"

mtjm

Shouldn't this be in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938937, mods feel free to move

dark crystal

kylith wrote: »

Whilst I obviously agree that rape is the most heinous of crimes, I feel somewhat conflicted about arresting a man based on an allegation of something that happened 45 years ago. I fail to see how jailing him could benefit anyone, or how the case could be proven to be anything other than 'he said, she said'.

I think if he committed a crime, he should answer for it. The only problem I'm starting to have with all these arrests, is the naming of the suspects.

If they are found to be guilty, by all means name and shame them, but if they are found to be innocent, the allegations will still follow them around for the rest of their lives.

Am I getting a sense of deja vu here?

Duckworth_Luas

mtjm wrote: »

Shouldn't this be in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938937, mods feel free to move

That's a thread about someone called Bill Roache, this one is about Ken Barlow, the guy from Coronation Street!

mirwillbeback

First Kevin Webster.

Now Ken Barlow.

It all sounds like a bad script for a TV soap opera

Ilyana 2.0

The reason why sexual assaults of minors sometimes aren't reported until decades later is because some victims block it from their memory as a coping mechanism, and it can take years for them to realise what actually happened to them, and that it was a crime.

There is a danger that it it could be an unfair trial (if he's charged, that is). But if an allegation has been made, it can't be disregarded either.

Muckie

Real life stranger than fiction.....

bacon n eggs

If they are found to be guilty, by all means name and shame them, but if they are found to be innocent, the allegations will still follow them around for the rest of their lives.

Totally agree

admiralofthefleet

was it wendy crozier?

Robbo

mirwillbeback wrote: »

First Kevin Webster.

Now Ken Barlow.

It all sounds like a bad script for a TV soap opera

I bet the corpse of Alf Roberts is planking it now.

Ilyana 2.0

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

The reason why sexual assaults of minors sometimes aren't reported until decades later is because some victims block it from their memory as a coping mechanism, and it can take years for them to realise what actually happened to them, and that it was a crime.

There is a danger that it it could be an unfair trial (if he's charged, that is). But if an allegation has been made, it can't be disregarded either.

Crazy that everyone seems to have mentally unblocked their trauma at roughly the same time. :rolleyes:

mirwillbeback

mirwillbeback wrote: »

First Kevin Webster.

Now Ken Barlow.

It all sounds like a bad script for a TV soap opera

Oh, two separate people then? Which one is Ken Barlow?

Ilyana 2.0

Deleted User wrote: »

Crazy that everyone seems to have mentally unblocked their trauma at roughly the same time. :rolleyes:

Maybe people are getting the courage to come forward after seeing others do it. That's not to say that all the allegations are true, but they still all have to be investigated.

Rascasse

Only in the last couple of months he was saying people accused of this sort of thing should be forgiven and that sexual abuse victims bring it on themselves because of what they've done in past lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGw9RfmFdQ

Arawn

Statute of limitations would surely apply no?

FloatingVoter

The mans a serial adulterer, his daughter is a convicted murderer, son is of a violent disposition with alcohol problems and to top it all off he's married to a shriveled prune - this comes as no surprise.
Myself and Blanche knew he was a wrong 'un from the start.

Duckworth_Luas

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The mans a serial adulterer, his daughter is a convicted murderer, son is of a violent disposition with alcohol problems and to top it all off he's married to a shriveled prune - this comes as no surprise.
Myself and Blanche knew he was a wrong 'un from the start.

Wow, it's as if this guy walked straight off the set of Eastenders!

syklops

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

Maybe people are getting the courage to come forward after seeing others do it. That's not to say that all the allegations are true, but they still all have to be investigated.

Maybe people are getting the courage to do so after they heard about the compensation Jimmy Saville victims might be getting

syklops

Rascasse wrote: »

Only in the last couple of months he was saying people accused of this sort of thing should be forgiven and that sexual abuse victims bring it on themselves because of what they've done in past lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoGw9RfmFdQ

Did you even watch that video? No where does he say that sex abuse victims bring it on himself. He said there is a difference between predators grooming children and pop stars who sleep with groupies. He also said, there should be anonymity for both the accused and the accuser until facts have been determined. Considering we are in a thread discussing his arrest after an anonymous allegation, he was right.

Ilyana 2.0

syklops wrote: »

Maybe people are getting the courage to do so after they heard about the compensation Jimmy Saville victims might be getting

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

Dancor

Mike Baldwin will be laughing in his grave.

Rascasse

syklops wrote: »

Did you even watch that video? No where does he say that sex abuse victims bring it on himself. He said there is a difference between predators grooming children and pop stars who sleep with groupies. He also said, there should be anonymity for both the accused and the accuser until facts have been determined. Considering we are in a thread discussing his arrest after an anonymous allegation, he was right.

Did you watch it?

From 1m 8s

Roache: “If you accept that you are pure love, and if you know that you are pure love and therefore live that pure love, these things won’t happen to you.”

Interviewer: “To some people that sounds perhaps like you’re saying victims bring things on themselves – is that what you’re saying?”

Roache: “No, not quite, but and yet I am, because everything that happens to us has been a result of what we have been in previous lives or whatever.”

The comments caused quite a stir at the time.

He even made a ham-fisted attempt at explaining his comments, where he went on to again defend those accused of historical sexual offences (I imagine he knew today was coming).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieb8GEedLX0

Think_then_talk

Arawn wrote: »

Statute of limitations would surely apply no?

The Limitation Act is relevant to civil cases only - it does not apply to criminal cases.

Unregistered.

Madam_X

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

Ilyana 2.0

Madam_X wrote: »

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

Silly me, I should have known!

syklops

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

I don't think that being cynical about these things is helpful to anyone.

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

syklops

Madam_X wrote: »

But being that cynical and cold (when you have never been abused) makes you look real bad-ass don't ya know.

So you genuinely think that the population of Britain have experienced some kind of mass memory revival, and its just a coincidence that all the abusers are celebrities.

And how do you know I was never abused?

mikehammer67

syklops wrote: »

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

they have to prove guilt unless the justice system has changed

Skid X

biko wrote: »

I don't like it when I have to google people that get threads in AH.

Seriously - Ken Barlow? You've never heard of Ken Barlow? He's only ... Ah forget it.

Ilyana 2.0

syklops wrote: »

Im not being cynical, I am being realistic. Ever since the Jimmy Saville allegations all kinds of celebrities have had allegations made against them. The allegations are almost always anonymous, and relate to a crime allegedly committed 30 or 40 years ago, so there is no evidence, just he said/she said disputes. However the onus is on the actor to prove that someone whose identity he does not know was not raped by him in 1967. How do you do that if you are innocent? Where do you start?

The onus of proof is on the prosecuting side, so if this goes to trial, he doesn't have to say a word. Well, I think that's how it operates in the UK anyway.

I'm not saying that the allegations are true, or that it's fair that he's been identified before a trial has begun. But if someone makes a serious claim like that, it can't be shrugged off just because other people might be able to claim significant damages in an entirely different case.