PeterF

Am I the only one thinking what a waste of money this case is, I mean its just part of a witch hunt at the end of the day.

Remember these cases are 30-40 years old, the days when carry on films were made and many other shows that would not see the light of day now.

Although he seemed to have been a perv in his day and the behavior would not be tolerated in today's PC world, in those days a lot of things were accepted during every day life.

It just seems wrong to me to judge someone on today's outlook for crimes committed many years ago when the outlook was different.

I'm sure everyone agrees that today is better, but this trial is just wrong in my opinion.

iaink

Hmm, so a sexual assault is OK, as long as it happened a long time ago.


Im pretty sure the victims would disagree.

Oink

He's a dirty naffing nonce who like rest of his celebrity nonce pals should be locked up.

Jingsamichty

Perhaps a trial wouldn't have been required if he admitted that he'd been a bit of an old lech? Of course, it's possible he's entirely innocent, in which case how else, apart from a trial, could he get his word across?

dbd33

I'm sensitive to the argument that the current rash of prosecutions apply today's standards to yesterday's actions, however we're not talking about the middle ages; this happened in my lifetime. I know there was never a time when it would have been acceptable for me to grope random women in the manner that he has.

He's a shit, send him away.

Almost Canadian

He will be judged in accordance with the prevailing standards of the time of the acts, not those in existence today.

It will be interesting to see if he gives evidence. Mr. Roache too!

orly

Not that I'd know the facts for sure but does anyone else ever just get a feeling about people when these accusations come out?

When Jimmy Savile was exposed it was hardly a shocker but Ken Barlow..?

Seems that if you are male and were reasonably famous in the 70's or later you would appear to be a guaranteed pederast or paedophile.

Oink

No, not that many of them considering. Just the dirt bags.

PeterF

I can remember the odd grope happening in the 70's 'as a joke' etc. It was different times.

Jingsamichty

I was just grateful for anything that came my way. Starved of attention, I suppose.

Dashie

I have a friend who would say that, 20 years down the line, an incident of this nature has affected a lot of her life since, while the man now subject to a 'witch hunt' has enjoyed decades of getting away with it and living his life just fine. I do think that trials are needed, but if they are found to be guilty, I think they deserve everything that's coming to them, probably more.

I know that the majority in the Travis case were adults (and to be honest, I don't see that as being anything of a better situation), but when has it EVER been ok to grope a child? I know many could use the excuse that a teenager might have been acting inappropriately, wearing the wrong clothes, flirting, whatever. Teenagers don't make good decisions. That's why they don't have full autonomy until 16-18, and in the meantime, adults are supposed to help them out, not initiate them.

Stuart Hall was originally sentenced in line with how he might have been sentenced at the time he committed those acts, and on appeal, his sentence was extended. No, it's never been ok, who cares if judgements are harsher now? Wasn't legal then, isn't now.

I do agree about Savile though, I remember when the documentary and story broke thinking, 'how is this news'?

Oink

I alway thought that David Attenborough looked and sounded a little dodgy. You always wondered where his other hand was when he picked up an armadillo or koala.

Almost Canadian

Either there should be no reporting on such cases until the Trial is finished or, if they are acquitted, their accusers should be identified. The current method seems far too one sided to me.

Tirytory

Odd grope as a joke.....are you for real? I think your attitude to it stinks.

PeterF

Well bully for you