Bill Roache aka Ken Barlow arrested for rape

bill-roache-who-plays-ken-barlow-in-coronation-street-932305285

Oh dear, Coro star Bill Roache aka Ken Barlow is in a spot of bother.

Coronation Street actor Bill Roache has been arrested for rape.

The actor, who has played Ken Barlow in the TV soap for decades, was held at his home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, this morning.

Roache, 81, faces an allegation of raping an under-age girl in Lancashire between April and July 1967.

A spokesman for Lancashire Police said: “An 81-year-old man from Wilmslow in Cheshire has this morning, Wednesday May 1 2013, been arrested by Lancashire Constabulary on suspicion of rape.

“The man will be interviewed at a police station in Lancashire during the course of the day.

“We take all allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously and would encourage people with any information about sexual abuse, or anyone who has been a victim of sexual abuse, to come forward and report their concerns confident in the knowledge they will be investigated appropriately and with sensitivity.” 

What makes this worse for Bill Roache is that he has been sticking up for Jimmy Savile and celebrities by saying sex abuse victims had brought it on themselves:

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.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

    If they had have been Kiwis then we wouldn’t know about it as they would both have name suppression. You only have to be a 2 bit comedian or an aspiring athlete to get name suppression here. This really shows up our protectionist ‘justice’ system that fails the victims.

    • Gazzaw

      A very good point Euan. I hadn’t thought of these Brit cases and how they would have been handled under our system. Their lawyers would have successfully argued for name suppression all the way to the finishing line on the basis that it would harm the victims or would prejudice the accused’s family or career.

    • unsol

      So true Euan. When you think about it it really is mind boggling that someone Bill Roache’s profile doesn’t get name suppression yet the wannabe muppets here too.

      But we also pay more in welfare etc too (not drawing a comparison other than there are other areas we are too soft!).

      NZ law & policy is just spineless.

    • Peej

      Solution? No suppression for two bit comedians or athletes? No suppression for anyone?

      • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

        Judges should be able to decide if name suppression is warranted to protect victims, but we have gone far too far giving virtually every criminal name suppression. I’ll throw it back to you, “Do you think Harris and Roach should get name suppression?” because you know they would in NZ.

        • Peej

          Harris and Roach at the moment as far as I know are not criminals. They are arrested. At the moment there are said to be victims. Are there victims if they don’t end up in court or are found not guilty? Another poster says, “There must be some validity in the accusations as the police have laid charges.”

          I’ve stolen this from elsewhere today: “I know of a case in the UK where a guy who was accused of raping his 2 daughters by his ex wife, it dragged on for months, he was dragged through the courts and on the day of the jury decision he went out at lunchtime and threw himself of a bridge and killed himself. His ex then confessed she had made it all up and coached her daughters into saying these things to get back at the guy for his affair.”

          Who were the victims to be protected by suppression in that case? As you say Judges should be able to decide if name
          suppression is warranted.

          • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

            Bad argument. If someone gets wrongly convicted of murder, we then shouldn’t arrest anyone else on murder charges just in case they might be innocent? They are charged of serious ‘criminal’ offences, and therefore the public should be allowed to know what the police are up to. I am all for innocent until proven guilty, but allowing the public to know what is going on is not pronouncing guilt. Some (very much the minority), will be wrongly accused – life’s not fair, sometimes you have to suck it up. The only people who really matter to someone convicted are those who know them, and they will already know anyway.

          • Peej

            No argument just points to ponder. In commenting that the public should be allowed to know what the police are up to and that being no pronouncement of guilt, it seems that you lean towards no suppression at all and the ones who unfairly suffer need to suck it up. If your brother or best friend was the guy in the scenario above I wonder if you’d think differently. Or someone with an axe to grind potted you to the police falsely and your life and family was irreparably damaged would you shrug and say”life’s not fair?”

          • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

            As stated above, I tend towards the judiciary allowing name suppression for cases where public interest is outweighed by the risk of defamation to victims. If one of my family were ‘wrongly’ accused, then I would support them as best I could. If I did not have faith in our judicial system, then I may feel different, but as far as I am concerned justice should be public. For me such public(ity) is part of the justice process. Should criminal charges be wrongly brought on numerous occasions then we would want to look at why the police/crown prosecutors are so crap at their jobs.

          • Bunswalla

            It’s a specious argument, justice is supposed to be open and transparent. Regardless of whether suppression is granted or not, almost every trial is held in open court and if you want to know who’s up for what, just go along and take notes.

            Name suppression doesn’t count for jack when they call your name out and you have to stand in the dock.

          • hellokitty

            From what you’ve said it sounds like he killed himself because of the jury’s decision, not because he didn’t have name suppression.

        • cows4me

          I think both parties should have suppression. The victim may be making a false complaint, why should they get name suppression and not the accused? Roache may be innocent or he may be guilty wait till after the trail, Isn’t it innocent before proven guilty?

          • unsol

            I think that is a fair point however, in cases like these it is rare that where there is smoke there is no fire.

            Good decent men are not ever in a position where they might get falsely accused.

            If he had never had interactions with young girls & kept his distance then there would never have been a possibility of having a case to answer to.

          • Harroputza

            So… Clint Rickards was accused of an historic rape and cleared, but his reputation is forever tarnished. I’m not going to go into the truth of whether he did it or not, but imagine for a second that he didn’t do it. Even though the courts found him not guilty, he will forever be “the cop that was charged with raping that girl”. Now imagine it’s you in his position.

            I think name suppression is fine until conviction. Once the conviction is entered, you’ve been found guilty and all bets are off. Arguing that you’re famous or that it’ll hurt your job is stupid. You should have thought about that before you did the crime.

          • unsol

            The operative words were “good men”……

            Clint Rickards was not & is not a good man; good men do not have group sex involving weapons with 15 year old girls (which is what they admitted to – he got off because of the issue of consent. Smart move). And she would have looked 15 in the 1980s – they didn’t dress up like they do now.

            I’m not sure about name suppression – but i do tend to lean towards it until after the court so that it is a fair trial. See no problem with it being lifted irrespective of the outcome. Unless the victim requests otherwise.

          • Lion_ess

            “… they didn’t dress up like they do now” Yes they did.

          • unsol

            I hardly think bright blusher, perms, shoulder pads & bubble gum jeans with commandos is on par with….

          • unsol

            Compared with say, something like this… (day time)

          • unsol

            Night time – perhaps something like this… :-)

          • Lion_ess

            Finding 3 pictures of people in various forms of dress does not support your argument. They’re just pictures you’ve pulled off the net – so what?

          • unsol

            Show me otherwise then….

            And I am not sure what your pay-off by playing the devil’s advocate here.

            If it was your 15 year old how & she dressed up & had sex with an older man, would you feel that she consented?

          • Lion_ess

            Doesn’t look a day under 20.

          • unsol

            :-)

          • johnbronkhorst

            Robertson on a night out?

          • johnbronkhorst

            Grant Robertson???

          • Harroputza

            Well, thankfully our court system isn’t based on your decision of what constitutes moral behaviour. The point was not so much about Rickards’ individual case as the general principle that people can be accused and found not guilty of a crime, but their name will be forever associated with that crime whether they did it or not. That’s what I want to avoid.

          • unsol

            “your decision of what constitutes moral behaviour”

            So you are saying that group sex with battons between police officers in their 20s & a 15 year old girl is OK.

            Well, you’re quite the catch arent you!

          • Harroputza

            I don’t care about the facts of the case; I care about the principle. Everything you have talked about has been the facts of the case.

            For the record, no, I don’t think it’s OK. I don’t think it would be OK with a 16-year-old either, but that would be legal. There’s lots of laws I don’t think are OK, but I’m not going to begrudge someone arguing a defence just because I don’t like what he did or what kind of person he is.

            End transmission.

          • parorchestia

            Women have always dressed up and they certainly did so inthe ’70s. They even flashed highly erotic ankles in earlier times, or exposed their breasts in at least two periods of English history.

          • unsol

            erotic ankles :-) But we are talking about girls not women

          • Agent BallSack

            Yeah Clint Rickards is guilty as charged, and that case highlights what is wrong with NZ Law, especially not being able to tell the jury that Schollum was already serving time for rape. The guy is a pack raping paedophile along with his buddies and stuff like that was endemic in small towns. Like the murder case in ChCh last week where the jury couldnt be told the accused had already killed someone. This should be common knowledge – the accused had form for this sort of behaviour.

          • Harroputza

            Sweet. Let’s just get rid of the court system altogether and look at what people have done in the past and the kinds of friends they have.

          • parorchestia

            The jury system was instituted when people knew everyone in the much smaller communities of the time. It was thought that they would bring a note of realism and community wisdom and knowledge about the alleged offender into the somewhat isolated air of the legal and judicial system.
            They should be allowed to function this way now.

          • Agent BallSack

            His “friends” were also cops who were rapists. He was a cop which meant he turned a blind eye at the very least to what was going on. Hardly an innocent now, was he? He enabled the behaviour to go on even if he wasn’t directly involved. And given the brotherhood mentality of cops, chances are he was involved.

          • Peej

            …and what people say on blog sites!

          • Bunswalla

            And the one in Lower Hutt where not only had the dickhead’s mate confessed to his part of the road rage attack but as it turned out his old man had stabbed his cousin to death at almost exactly the same spot, and his grandfather shot-gunned a man in the back while robbing a pub!

            The jury couldn’t be told any of this information, and although it shouldn’t be told about his family history, I don’t see why they can’t know that one of his co-offenders had admitted it was a rod=ad-rage attack.

    • Mr_Blobby

      The only people our Justice system doesn’t fail is the troughers making a good living out of it.

  • LesleyNZ

    Something is a bit odd here. After all these years these stars are accused of rape?

    • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

      kiddy fiddling I think.
      or underage consensual sex which is still rape.

    • unsol

      Are you a coro fan Lesley?

      Not odd at all – rape charges are often historical & more always come out when one person has the courage to lay a complaint.

      Further, as these cases seem to all involve girls who were minors, regardless of whether there was consent, these men are dirty old perverts; good decent men do not want to have sex with 15/16 year olds. Ever.

      • LesleyNZ

        Coro St has got so ridiculous in its storyline and PC with themes of social engineering I wouldn’t give it space in my brain. The men are old now but not so 40 odd years ago. We will see what happens and whether this happened or not.

      • Lion_ess

        Clearly you have not been around 15-16 year old’s who can pass themselves off for 20 and will happily line up as star-fuckers.

        • unsol

          Didn’t take long for someone to bring in the ‘groupie’ defence!!!

          And you have? I have never met a ‘big’ star, but have seen enough young people all dolled up to know what they might look like.

          The reality is only young people think they look older, older people can tell they look young – at the very least, under 20 so why go there?

          • Lion_ess

            Maybe you didn’t get out much as a teenager – I did – it was common place, and still is.

          • unsol

            Get out? So you were the town bike? Is that what you’re meaning? Or do you mean parties? I wasn’t going to parties at 15 – my parents set boundaries & because they were good parents, I respected them. So my kind of going out was movies, roller skating (to Mel & Kim of course!) & doing things like ten pin bowling….

          • Lion_ess

            Get out? Town Bike! Gosh, you surprise me with your simplistic conclusion. As a teen, I mixed with older people – my female and male friends were several years older than myself from about the age of 15. So, no, I wasn’t going roller-skating then – liked it when I was 11 though. Some people take personal responsibility for themselves before others – I was an early adopter. Then again, as you will be aware, some people never take personal responsibility for themselves – again, it’s not a one size fits all.

          • unsol

            I don’t think I was still roller skating at 15 either. At 15 I was well into my cross country running & going tramping & mountain climbing so weekends were often kept quite holistic. That said I also had many friends that were older – but not over 20, yet I didn’t get into things that no 15 years old should.

            This isn’t about personal responsibility, this is about young girls who, for whatever reason, are hanging out with older men & older men who like having sex with young girls.

            Any parent who allows their 15 year old to hang out with older men has failed in their duty to have a good relationship with that child & failed to set proper boundaries & guidelines in terms of relationships, friendships & sexual activity.

            A 15, 16 & 17 year old is a minor & still in the process of going through massive cognitive & emotional development. Something which obviously can continue to on well into ones 20s. Perhaps older judging by some comments on here.

            Sexual promiscuity at this age does more harm than good.

          • Lion_ess

            Ah, Anne of Green Gables – pub. 1908 – a great book wasn’t it?
            US, I think you make some salient points and by all means, protection of children is paramount, as is teaching them to be responsible – sadly I think the latter is lacking today.

            This thread addresses Bill Roache and what he may or may not have done 46 years ago with a 15 year old and you asked why I was playing the Devil’s Advocate?

            Pedophiles and rapists deserve stringing up, but there is a lot of grey area in sexual connection activities between females and males, that females are equally responsible for but rarely made accountable for.

            You may right – where there’s smoke there’s usually fire – but equally the world isn’t short of women who use sexual connection as a means for financial extortion. I do wonder why a 61 year old, waited 46 years to lay charges against a household name, I guess in time we’ll find out.

            By the way, you’ve had 3 goes at inferring I’m a “town-bike”, and I wonder if making slurs against people you’ve never met, is at the top of every page of your Moral Code?

          • unsol

            I haven’t deliberately inferred you were a town bike any more than you have deliberately inferred teenagers who choose to abide their parent’s rules are behind in their development or lack personal responsibility.

            I merely asked you a question & just like you have offered views based on your experience, I offered views based on mine.

            And I wonder why these women have waited over 40 years too. But sexual abuse & rape is a very personal thing & like grief, people respond differently. Perhaps for these women it needed the death of Jimmy Savile & the courage of his victims to come forward before they could do they same.

            Don’t follow re Anne of Green Gables – they were the same age so what is your point?

          • Lion_ess

            Just as some babies learn to walk at 9 months, while others don’t walk until they’re 2, people come of age(independence/taking responsibility) in other areas of life and this does not necessarily coincide with blowing out the candles on one’s 16th birthday cake.

            Try preventing a 9 month old baby from walking until they turn 2.

          • unsol

            I don’t think that is a good analogy at all. For a start, preventing a child’s natural development (so stopping them from walking until they are 2) is harmful.

            Preventing a teenager from having sex with an older man is not.

            Having wisdom beyond your years or being street wise for your age is not synonymous with having the emotional maturity to make adult decisions you are meant to have the foresight & properly weigh the pros & cons; understand cause & effect.

            15 year olds do not have the maturity to do this – not in the 1960s & not now. 150 years ago maybe because times were quite different. Sure some might have the maturity of a 16 or 17 year, but what does it matter? The law says no for 15 year olds and irrespective of this they always look young. So any man being accosted by a groupie should have the good character to make certain they know who they are having sex with.

            Like I said, what is your pay-off when playing the devil’s advocate; you are arguing alternative points of view yet don’t seem to be a fan of pedophilia, so what gives?

        • Andy C

          That’s why it is statutory rape, so it can never be a defence to claim that “I was sure they were old enough”. This law’s kinda good like that.

          • Lion_ess

            Personally I think that girls who consent to underage sex, even if it’s with an underage partner, need to bear some of the responsibility. Try running a poll on the age at which girls lost their virginity and I would be surprised if the majority are over the age of consent.

          • Andy C

            Like I said Lion_ess, that’s why we have these laws. To give protection to our children from attitudes/views like you just expressed. I’m gonna give you the benefit and assume you simply didn’t engage your brain before that comment.

      • spollyike

        Unsol, they may or may not be dirty, the courts will decide. However at the time their supposed offences were committed they were hardly old…”Barlow” was about 35 at the time it seems.

        • unsol

          35 and 15 is no better – it hardly changes the fact that he went was keen on jail-bait

    • Gazzaw

      The Savile case obviously exposed issues that were endemic in the British entertainment industry and we are now in an era where the victims can expose what went on rather than it being swept under the carpet. Of course the media will exploit it for all they are worth and the Brit media are past masters at that game. Whether these accusations are valid will be answered in court but obviously the UK police and the DPP believe that their is a case to answer.

      • unsol

        There must be some validity in the accusations as the police have laid charges. She must have sufficient evidence to prove that his behaviour is suspicious. Or she is just a really good liar. But an underaged girl vs a 30 or so year old man? His reputation won’t survive this.

        Whether he will get convicted is another story – historical rape is very hard to prove. But if more girls come forward then his career then they will have a higher chance of success.

        And I bet there is more too. There always is.

        • LesleyNZ

          I don’t think charges have been laid yet – heard this morning he is at the police station being questioned.

          • unsol

            My mistake, yes he has only been arrested….

          • LesleyNZ

            He has now been charged – Oh dear…………………

        • Lion_ess

          “Historical rape is hard to prove”. It’s hard to disprove as well – basically it will come down as to who to believe.

          • unsol

            Louise Nicholas would beg to differ.

            Further, the conviction rate, according to the MOJ, is around 30% so no, the precedent is usually to rule against the victim

          • LesleyNZ

            Yes well – did the whole story get told in the Louise Nicholas trial? Some might say it didn’t.

          • unsol

            There is always an element of these cases we will never know.

            But she was 15 & they were in their 20s, police officers & all admitted to having group sex including with a batton.

            I very much doubt she was the one true exception to a 15 year old’s inability to genuinely consent to such acts.

      • Mediaan

        Let’s hope that the cork is, indeed, out.

        Yes, publicity reassures other victims that they can safely come forward. Publicity is vital.

        The police’s mature-style assurance to victims that they will be listened to is also vital.

        However. The next move by the child abuse gangs will be, they will set up blatantly false complaints. They will aim to get the, “See? A lot of it is made up,” response swinging back in again.

        You can set your watch by it.

        Hopefully the new social backbone will hold.

        • Gazzaw

          I totally agree. Doubtless there are people in high places who will use all of their influence to close this down and cover their arses. It will need people of absolute integrity in the UK police and justice system to pursue this to the bitter end. The UK ‘establishment’ is enormously powerful.

    • Mediaan

      I think you will find out it isn’t odd. It is related to uncovering much more damage in society.

    • trisha

      the only thing odd is your inability to comprehend how child rape, molestation, unlawful sexual connection manifests itself as the child grows older

  • unsol

    I wish I could say this news was absolutely shocking, but given his interview a few weeks back you’d have to be a complete moron to not work out he had at least enabled if not participated in the same vile behaviour all these others are being accused of.

    Oh how far the proud & arrogant fall. The man is a creep & a dickhead.

    • Lion_ess

      Oh dear, perhaps you’re right – just reading the Herald article which states”
      “In another interview last year Roache claimed to have slept with 1000 women”
      An 81 year old numbering his conquests is creepy.

      • unsol

        And pathetic! Anyone can sleep around – it takes character to form real relationships :)

        • Lion_ess

          Not everyone wants to form “real relationships” though, given your support for ME, I would have thought you would also recognise people can have fulfilling lives, including sex, without forming “real relationships”.

          • unsol

            So you are saying that those who support extending right to marry to the LGBT support promiscuity?

            Bit of a contradiction in terms don’t you think; if you are a fan of marriage you don’t tend to be a fan of those who choose to be the town bike or live permanently in de facto relationships.

          • Lion_ess

            No contradiction, adults have the right to choose their own lifestyles which may not necessarily fit with your picture. One doesn’t have to either be married, or else they’re a town bike or promiscuous. People can be the town-bike and be married.

            You’re argument is as irrational as those who claim ME is a threat to the fabric of society.

          • unsol

            Sorry, but I need you to provide more clarification on your first statement.

            You stated that”given your support for ME, I would have thought you would also recognise people can have fulfilling lives, including sex, without forming “real relationships”

            If you did not mean to imply that those who support ME are fans of promiscuity then are you saying LGBT marriages are not real relationships?

            And as for being the down bike & married – real relationships make these two concepts mutually exclusive. You cannot truly commit to another person & be involved in that relationship 100% when you are introducing a 3rd (or more parties).

            Sure some claim open relationships work for them etc, but I question whether these have any real & fulfilling longevity for both/all parties. Women are not good at sharing their men.

          • Lion_ess

            No, I did not mean to imply that those who support ME are fans of promiscuity. Only that those who choose to marry, should be able to appreciate that those who don’t can live equally happy and fulfilling lives. It’s not a matter of one size fits all.

          • unsol

            I agree.

    • Random66

      Totally agree. When I heard his interview I actually turned to my husband and said, ‘Did you just hear what that sick bastard said?’ No surprises at all with the news this morning. I must say you are on fire today and I agree with most of what you have said.

      • unsol

        Well random I would hope this issue is one thing you & I will always agree on – these are someone’s daughters & men have been getting away with this crap since the beginning of time (as you know I argue that traditional marriage often meant older men marrying young girls).

        I just can’t see how it does society any good by allowing men to get away with the excuse that because they looked old enough (so 16), that it is OK.

  • tarkwin

    Deidre won’t be happy I say Deidre won’t be happy.

  • Lion_ess

    The comments Bill Roache made while in NZ brought one word to my mind – Cuckoo. However, I do wonder how one goes about defending a rape charge from forty-six years ago. With his “victim” now being 61, one has to stretch a little to understand why this person would lay charges now against such a high profile person.

  • Drhill

    Would like to point out Doctor Who has been running for a long as Coronation Street and never had an arrest of a actor.

    • tarkwin

      What happens in the tardis stays in the tardis.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

      Why do you think they keep changing the actors around so frequently, huh?

      • tarkwin

        I don’t trust the latest one, far to pale and florid for my liking.

    • Betty Swallocks

      I wonder who’s going to be exposed next? I suppose we’re going to see an interview with Sniff the dog on Campbell Live one night alleging that Constable Keith used to put more than his hand up the poor dog’s bum in between takes.

    • spollyike

      I’m sure those Darleks got up to plenty…just look at those “lasers”, maybe instead of EXTERMINATE, they were saying PENETRATE all along!

  • Phar Lap

    That decade was known as the sexy sixties and Woodstock.Seemed a time of liberation in all things ,even flower people existed.Would be interesting to find anyone today, who was not caught up in the sea change any which way,in the so called sexy sixties.

    • Andy C

      He’s been accused of having sex with minors PharLap. Could you clarify what your point was please?

      • Agent BallSack

        Not defending him or anything but I *think* the age of consent in the 60s was 14. Happy to be proved wrong of course and the guys still a creep no matter what.

        • unsol

          I just did a quick google & thankfully it was 16 – moved up from 13 in 1885 I think.

      • Phar Lap

        It is a smart cookie who can tell the difference in age of a young woman ,especially if they say they are older.Thats how the game was played in the 60s.Maybe the rules have changed .Let us not get too hung up on 1960s rules.Do you get the point,or what part of what i said dont you understand.You sound slightly paranoiac in your attitude,.Let us not forget Mohammed the prophet had a nine year old child as his wife.As a matter of interest millions of muslims think that that was ok and still do .

        • Andy C

          “You sound slightly paranoiac in your attitude”
          Nope.

          And I tell you what else I don’t sound like. I don’t sound like someone sort of trying to say kiddy sex is ok but not really and that’s not what I mean but you know some people think its ok so maybe but not really and maybe it was different then and we shouldn’t judge and… etc

          I don’t sound like that either.

          And re your smart cookie comment – if you fuck kids then its your problem. They can dress up? Tough. The law’s pretty strict like that. Good. If you don’t agree then I suggest you’ve got a serious viewpoint problem and should start looking pretty hard at yourself.

          • unsol

            Well said Andy.

          • Phar Lap

            So whats your take on Mohammed the Prophet.As you never mentioned him in your sermon back to me ,I must assume you agree with him marrying a nine year old child.Sure you are not hiding something,you in all your blogs back to different bloggers appear to protest too much.

          • Andy C

            Just say this Phar Lap – ‘my comments were shit, I take them back’. It would make you seem like much less of an arsehat.

  • Agent BallSack

    His statements about pure love are creepy and he stood by them until someone had a word in his ear and said Bill, you’ve jumped the shark here. Pure love sounds like the sort of thing kiddy fiddlers and NAMBLA say.

    • unsol

      Very true. The guy who ran the big commune here apparently uttered very similar sentiments. His words seem similar to the ‘guru’ type pedophiles who often claim to be infallible, superior & omniscient etc. They apparently believe they are in love with love the child & certain that the child is in love with them – primarily because they know better than the world

  • cows4me

    Listening to talk back last night and some old dears were in tears because poor old Ken had been stitched up. Bloody hilarious, if the world has become so alien to some that they need to immerse themselves in a fantasy world then we are in a sorry state. Is it any wonder people believe in world where big government and socialism is the only answer. They have lost the ability to remove fantasy from reality.

    • tarkwin

      Probably my wife, she loves the bloody show.

      • cows4me

        You have my sincere condolences.

        • tarkwin

          We all have our cross to bear – no wonder I drink so much.

      • cows4me

        You have my sincere condolences.

        • tarkwin

          It’s not all bad, I go to the pub when it’s on. Sometimes I stay in the pub till late because I think it might be on. That one is starting to wear a bit thin.

          • cows4me

            You need another tele tarkwin but I love your idea about the pub. The missus records all that crap on Mysky but the kids wipe it off to record top gear, the feathers fly then.

          • Dave

            Tarkwin and C4M Suggest you start a fishing/drinking/hunting club or similar. Constitution states meetings start 30 minutes prior to Coro Street being played and continue for one hour after it concludes. Special duties of cleaning the clubhouse shall be bestowed on any member when his partner watches a recorded episode.

          • tarkwin

            We’ve got mysky, I just keep forgetting about that.

  • johnbronkhorst

    They have arrested him! I heard they are searching his house for evidence? Evidence of a rape that supposedly happened 46 years ago. What evidence could possibly still be there? Did the rape happen there?
    Why is this woman only coming forward now?

    • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

      He is in the film industry. My guess is he has a home movie collection.

    • Dave

      Exactly John, I mean 46 years ago, i was under 10 and living with my parents, i doubt i have anything left from that time, and suggest he will be the same, unless she wrote him a letter or similar, its not like they would have been texting him, or they were facebook buddies! THe only reason I can think of for searching his home is if they suspect something else is going on, and they are using the search for “discovery” of other possible issues.

  • spollyike

    So who’s next, the Rolling Stones?? Pretty sure they didn’t check the ID’s of all their groupies back then. Times were different then, all these “historical” cases remind me so much of the racists endless “historical” treaty claims. The context of something changes as society changes, it’s very difficult to judge past events from the 60′s by todays PC standards wasn’t it all “free-love and feminism” and all that?? Look how the part-maori judge/interpret what were the best intentions of early settlers in this country, nek minute it’s a holocaust!

    • Lion_ess

      You’re right, I wonder whether there should be a reasonable Statute of Limitations applicable to these cases – I’m thinking 25 years to accommodate those who have been abused as youngsters.

      • Andy C

        Jesus christ Lion_ess, you’re really going to town with the stupid today aren’t you. Do you get what you are saying here? If someone rapes your child tomorrow, then abscond away for x years, you’re saying “oh well, to late, never mind”?

        • Lion_ess

          No, I was referring to one’s ability to lay charges.

          • Andy C

            I know that’s what you were saying. And I repeat: stupid.

    • Dave

      Valid point re the Rolling Stones. and a lot more like them, going by their reputations, the police would face a huge problem, which tour do they investigate?? Mind you, Mick Jagger has the perfect defense, they can ask him any questions, he would say, I cant remember, I was stoned!

      • James Stephenson

        Iin 1989 Bill Wyman married Mandy Smith when he was 52 and she was 18…he admitted that their relationship was consummated when she was 14 and they’d been dating since she was 13…

    • http://www.facebook.com/euan.rosstaylor Euan Ross-Taylor

      I agree with you there. Times change – the only consideration though would have to be, ‘was it unlawful then?’ and how would this statute of limitations apply to the Turangi murderer who has just been convicted?

    • trisha

      ‘So who’s next’…..what about hugh hefner could you call him a pedofile, dirty old man, sleeze,..of course you could, he grooms his girlies with endless amounts of money, maybe a picture on the front page of his girlie magazine and most are 60 years younger than him…but of course his is most mens hero so nothing will be said while he is still alive and he just recently said He has been with 1000 women, what is it with the revelations in retrospect of these sad old men.

      • Agent BallSack

        He’s not my hero. I think hes a joke and a caricature of what he used to be like.

  • PlanetOrphan

    Well karma got him back at least :-)

  • Trevor Mardell

    On the subject of Bill’s comments in the interview with Garth Bray, they are nothing more than what we all call the law of Karma, as espoused in Buddhism and Hinduism – a belief that is held by more than 3 billion people in this world. What is important is that it relates to a high level ( spiritual ) view of life’s events ( why did this happen to me – a question I’m sure Ed Gavagan asks himself every day ). Some call it fate, some chance, some in the context of their religious or spiritual beliefs call it “karma”, as Bill Roache did, with today’s events governed by actions in the past.

    If you spoke to the Dalai Lama I’m sure he would (in the spiritual context) say exactly the same thing.

    Incidentally Bill Roache has written a book on his beliefs ( he does not call it religion btw) and if you read it, his comments make far more sense than what Garth Bray portrayed in the interview, where he took a purely literal interpretation of Roache’s words, and it was that literal interpretation that Roache had to “retract”.

    The Christian faith, while not acknowledging “past lives”, is still however founded in the concept of forgiveness, and I would suggest that before too many people who lived through the sixties get carried away, that they also remember another Christian tenet, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    The UK is in a spin over the Saville case, and in the ferver they are in peril of creating their own “Salem”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/edward.case.75 Edward Case

    That’ll teach him a lesson for boasting about the 1,000+ women he is supposed to have bedded.

    • unsol

      On the Sunday program he said he had slept with 20,000 women (I wonder if he includes the teenage girls in this description) then said it couldn’t be that much but it was more than he could count. Disgusting!!!!

      • BJ

        He’s not exactly sexually appealing – why did they do it I wonder?

        • unsol

          Beats me – some women (excluding the girl/where consent is an issue) clearly seem to think that kind of behaviour is worth it. We have the same thing here, but on a different scale of course (re well-known sportsman who cheat on tour).

          Btw care to offer your views re the discussion I had with Lion today – you’ve had/got teenagers. Do you think I am wrong?

          • BJ

            Gee thanks for the invitation into the lions den.

            Where to start?

            I was a teenager in the 70′s and had a well developed moral compass early on. I saw everything of the day, but chose not to actively participate in any unhealthy activities, rather I reigned in my mates from their recklessness. I was a tomboy late developer but most of my friends were looking like and conducting themselves as grownups at 15/16. We wore tight-as trousers or short tight-fitting dresses and very high shoes.

            My teenagers – 4 boys and 1 girl. I kept up dialogue with them about their strengths of self-confidence and problem solving skills and that I trusted them to make good choices that wouldn’t limit their future prospects – the theory being, they would have nothing to rebel against. It seems to have worked. The one thing I told my sons in all seriousness was to never engage in sexual activity with an underage girl because it was wrong in law and the consequences could ruin their lives. To be honest I had more concern for the boys vulnerability than my daughter.

            I actually think lion_ess’s analogy was spot on – I believe she? meant trying to control/discourage an early walker from taking off being independently mobile and getting into mischief was the equivalent of having a 15yr old that has rapidly developed physically and mentally well ahead of their peers – if you try and control either of them, they may react and behave badly despite utilizing your best parenting skills.

            Yes I’m sorry to say although I agree with your desire for innocence and age appropriate activities for 15yr olds, now more than ever before, that generally isn’t going to happen.

            Historic rape claims from 30-40 yrs ago – I have trouble with. Perceptions of remembered incidents become the truth over time and getting older one cares less what the public might think and more about the choices one has made in life – often looking around for something/someone to blame for our less than perfect lives. Depending on details, I believe there is an element of cruelty rather than justice being done over historic claims and that any evidence to refute a claim may be long gone. Sometimes it is necessary to admit to oneself the part you’ve played in such an involvement – not with guilt or shame – but just accept it happened – time to move on, even for some promiscuous 15 yr olds.

          • unsol

            Thanks heaps for your response BJ – I asked because I had an inkling on your answers so was curious to see how you would formulate your views. Not because I was trying to trap you!

            I really like the way you have said you have parented your teens – that is exactly the approach I am taking (dialogue starts well before they get to their teens!) as I am a firm believer in giving children enough ‘rope, but not enough to hang themselves’ as per the expression my parents used.

            I was a very rebellious teen but my parents managed to find the balance re allowing me to express myself without impacting my innocence. I had some friends who always did things first – who Lion would call early adapters, but when I look at where they are now sure, most have come good eventually , but the struggles to get to that point have been at times horrendous. So for me this is all the validation I need to model my parent’s parenting & ensure that our daughter does not feel the need to grow up too soon. There is a time for everything.

            By growing up I am meaning sexual activity, drinking, drugs etc. There is a time & place for this & under 18 is definitely not the time or place ever.

            The only reason why children get into stuff that is not age appropriate is because their parent’s let them. Even if they are maturing early in terms of puberty, attitude etc, like I said to Lion they are still children in terms of their cognitive & emotional development so it is up to the (good) parent to find the right balance so that they grow, make mistakes, but not the kind they come to regret later.

            Children do not need to express their new found maturity in sex, alcohol & drugs. These things can & should be prevented; it is not by some accident or uncontrollable force that children are apparently more advanced these days, it is through lax parenting where people have seen how they were brought up or how their parent’s were brought up (every controlling – hence the 70s & the freedom that was pushed for there) so have gone to the other extreme & become more relaxed. You cannot not stop their development but you can ensure they development in an appropriate direction by setting boundaries, knowing who their friends are, having an open home & always having an open dialogue where regardless of the circumstances (e.g. they snuck out) that you support first, ask/discuss/take away privileges later.

            That said it is worth nothing that children are not necessarily more advanced these days at all. There are many children who do not have sex or get into alcohol & drugs at young ages. There is a perception that they all do, that the majority do but research tells us primarily that if they do they are more likely to be Maori – which of course is only 14%.

            I should confess that some of my study & my future career is in this area hence my firm views.

            End of the day I think we all want the same outcome – we want our kids to be happy, well-adjusted contributing members of society – so perhaps this isn’t the best forum for such a discussion as no one should feel judged for the way they were as teens or how they were or plan to be as parents.

            Parents (should!) know their children best & (should!) always know what the best approach is re tackling these issues.

            In terms of historical abuse & rape claims one thing is for certain, if you were a victim you don’t ever forget the details.

            In terms of the Roache case, we don’t know if he forced himself on her or if it was apparently consensual but he’s being charged with statutory rape. I suspect the former as generally it is the parents who push for the latter. But irrespective of this & the victims potential regret in hindsight or whatever, she was 15 & he broke the law.

            The thing that annoyed me about Lion’s angle was that her arguments implied that there was a level playing field.

            I don’t care how mature a 15 year old thinks they are or how mature others might think they are, they are no match for a 35 year old & he should have known better. He should have had the foresight to recognise & understand any repercussions. This is called being an adult which is why I say 15 year decisions cannot possibly ever be akin to that of a 35 year old. Even if she looked old enough (as in 16 or over) & was keen, he should have said no. That is the decent & mature thing to do as he was meant to be the adult.

            But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

            I just wish the same scrutiny & repercussions would happen here – the unfunny comedian is working again.

            And Travis if you are keeping count – this comment is 839 words & took me 11 minutes to write. :-)

          • unsol

            P.s re the outfits, found a pic from the 60s (which is when these offences are meant to have taken place)…not really on par with the young girls I have seen tarted up these days!!!

  • Mr_V4

    Seriously how do you begin to investigate something that allegedly happened in 1967?

69%