Because the women will get called on their BS. They were there willingly, they probably needed to jump through half a dozen hoops to get close to the pop groups. They probably even needed to service the security guard before they even got close. They've probably bragged about the encounter dozens of times over the decades. If they claim abuse now, they'll get called on it.



It's really hard to imagine why women were offering it up to Ken Barlow, so they don't get called on it.

But the current thinking is that even if its offered you on a plate, you as an adult do not accept it because you know its illegal, and its current thinking that all of these cases are being tried on, or attempted to be tried on - so an under-age groupie offering herself to a pop hero should, in theory, still be able to make a complaint and the DPP, according to recent proclamations, WILL proceed with charges even on one persons word.



The Scottish group must be ting themselves every time there's a knock at the door...

To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years.



Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did.

Most of the cases I've read the women have claimed complete innocence on their part, and most of them were over age as well.



On being under age I think most of the groups will use the excuse of the "passing the bouncer test". Most of the places where the parties were taking place will have been nightclubs where you had to be over 18. If a girl's managed to convince the bouncers that they were over 18 that was good enough for them.



I think most of the women so far coming to the media with their stories have been given a very, very easy ride. They are receiving total sympathy from the courts and the media and in most cases their versions of events are unchallenged and uncontested.



I don't think a 15 year old groupie who was willingly having sex with pop stars 30 years ago and is now trying to claim she's a victim will get quite such an easy ride.



If girls of 11 or 12 were involved, I think most of the guys will have emigrated to Brazil or Sri Lanki and changed their name a few times and make sure they're never seen in Britain again. But I tend to think most of those rumours were just total fiction anyway. Like when a pop star or athlete brags about bedding a few thousand women, and when it's worked out it'd mean they'd have needed to have been having a different woman every single day of their adult lives.

Quote Dita's Slot Meter="Dita's Slot Meter"To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years. Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did.'" Well there's no need to worry, he didn't mind the exploitation. edition.cnn.com/2011/09/26/showbiz/nirvana-baby/ Although a prosecution lawyer would say that he was traumatised by the experience and cried for hours a day, every day after it happened. He was so affected he needed round the clock care from his parents for at least the next 5 years. They feel $1bn compensation should cover their pain.

Quote Dita's Slot Meter="Dita's Slot Meter"To be fair, both covers have reasoning to the artists who conceived them. Of course, it would be possible to pick holes in both sets of reasoning, but that's been the whole point of art through the years. Personally, I find no offence in either photograph, though if I was to be picky I'd actually suggest the Nirvana cover to be more exploitative of the individual involved, because I'd reckon the baby had no say in his participation, which surely/hopefully the 11 year old girl at least did.'" Well there's no need to worry, he didn't mind the exploitation. edition.cnn.com/2011/09/26/showbiz/nirvana-baby/ Although a prosecution lawyer would say that he was traumatised by the experience and cried for hours a day, every day after it happened. He was so affected he needed round the clock care from his parents for at least the next 5 years. They feel $1bn compensation should cover their pain.

Neither of the above album covers are as offensive as "Virgin Killer" by The Scorpions.



Didn't the news reader, Julia Sommerville, have to fight a case when Boots reported her for having taken a photo of her naked daughter on the beach?



People with a twisted sexuality will always read more into what seems an incongruous image than the rest of us. Some get off on pictures of plaster casts, others of animals. You can't ban "Life on Earth" because to some pervert it's his "Debbie does Dallas".

Jimmy Tarbuck will not be charged with any offence following his arrest as part of the larger Operation Yewtree investigation last April.



The CPS threw in the towel after admitting that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction after being accused of sexual abuse against "children" (ie more than one) in the 1970s, and yet even yesterday when interviewed in the press Tarbuck told them that he did not know the name of his accuser(s) nor would he ever, they remain anonymous not only from the public but also from the person whom they were accusing, presumably the past twelve months of legal fees are now borne by Tarbuck as he has no-one to accuse of false allegation ?



Its all rather unfair and a little worrying for all males, especially those who make their living as "celebrities".

Did I read somewhere that what he waaccused of took place back stage at Top Of the Pops in 1963? A programme that he has never been on and only started in 1964.

I don't know - the interview he gave earlier this week stated that he had not been told how many accusers had made statements, or who they were, or when they occurred, sounds very much like the "evidence" that led to his arrest last April and almost a years worth of investigation was based on a story or stories that didn't even pass a rudimentary test of reliability at the CPS.



Meantime he has been named, accused and had 12 months of hell trying to defend himself, not to mention the cost which cannot be recovered.

...and in other news Dave Lee Travis is to face a new accuser at the re-trial which was arranged after two of the charges at his original trial were left unresolved, so thats another one who has suddenly realised "Thats the bloke who groped me thirty years ago", AND there's another new one who will give evidence but not be listed as a charge as its alleged to have happened abroad, she will instead be used as a character assassin - presumably she had not heard anything of the charges and trial previously either.



The CPS seem to be sticking their necks out on this one, if they fail again then christ knows what they'll drag up for the next celeb...

Come on Mr. Chicken, when you were first hanging out with your celebrity relative, you copped the odd feel.



It's a fair cop, we're all friends here, we've heard the stories about deodorant down the keck's in the scoreboard at Headingley.

That was self abuse, to be tried for that I'd have to make a complaint against myself, unless any of the passengers on the top deck of that bus come forward.

Why do you never hear about flashers anymore?

When was the last time you saw a decent quality long brown raincoat for sale in a shop ?



Theres your answer along with sock suspenders and thick bottle-bottom glasses, there just isn't the supply chain for flashers any more.

Max Clifford has been jailed for 8 years

From Newsthump: Quote Convicted armed robber, Frank Murphy expressed his elation at the prospect of exchanging a manly fumble at Her Majesty’s behest for a huge paycheck under the guise of ‘news’. “Mr Clifford says he has nothing to hide – and if the rumours about the size of his penis are anything to go by – he would appear to be telling the truth,” he told us. “The thought of him bedding down for the evening beneath a cheap nylon blanket on a rock hard pillow doesn’t just fill the general public with a warm feeling – that extends to us cons too.” “To think that for the kind of invasion of privacy that he sought to exploit through his media interests could now be replicated by a troupe of hulking criminals for a large pot of honestly earned money, well.” “Let’s just say there are lots of fags being exchanged for vaseline as we speak.”'" Ouch! Full article: newsthump.com/2014/04/29/prison- ... -and-tell/

From Newsthump: Quote Convicted armed robber, Frank Murphy expressed his elation at the prospect of exchanging a manly fumble at Her Majesty’s behest for a huge paycheck under the guise of ‘news’. “Mr Clifford says he has nothing to hide – and if the rumours about the size of his penis are anything to go by – he would appear to be telling the truth,” he told us. “The thought of him bedding down for the evening beneath a cheap nylon blanket on a rock hard pillow doesn’t just fill the general public with a warm feeling – that extends to us cons too.” “To think that for the kind of invasion of privacy that he sought to exploit through his media interests could now be replicated by a troupe of hulking criminals for a large pot of honestly earned money, well.” “Let’s just say there are lots of fags being exchanged for vaseline as we speak.”'" Ouch! Full article: newsthump.com/2014/04/29/prison- ... -and-tell/

Is that 10 years for his vile, nasty story peddling with 2 years taken off for the stress of this stupid trial?



I haven't been watching his trial very much. Just the occasional story here and there. But from what I read it was all ridiculous nonsense. Supposedly showing his tiny penis and joking about how small it was while asking women to go to bed with him.



Anyone got an idea of the serious attack he's supposed to have done to get himself 8 years? I just hope he hasn't got 8 years for stupid nonsense like that ^^^^^. But I don't have that much faith in the British justice system so I wouldn't put it past them to give him a ridiculous sentence even without a serious assault.

He was given 8 seperate sentences ranging from 6 months to 2 years. These are to be served consecutively

No, for once they took an old list of allegations to trial with some actual evidence including a letter from one young woman who had written to him many years ago telling him how despicable she thought he was for what he did to her - rather stupidly he kept it in his bedside drawer for years and it was there when the police searched his home, presumably it was all part of how he got his kicks.

How often are sentences served consecutively? Isn't the normal practice to have all served at the same time? IMO it makes more sense to properly punish criminals for their crimes but as far as I was aware concurrent sentencing was how most people are dealt with.

pretty much all the time when multiple offences are prosecuted at the same time

Why he kept that letter just doesn't make sense. I don't whether that letter had this woman's name and address on it, but if I had received a letter like that wand were innocent I'd be getting in touch with her straight away to find out why she sent it. If what she wrote was true I'm have burnt it so no evidence of it existed.

You have to wonder how much his two wives knew about it too, a bedside cabinet is not the most secure place to keep your deepest secrets, not in our house anyway

Quote Lord God Jose Mourinho="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Is that 10 years for his vile, nasty story peddling with 2 years taken off for the stress of this stupid trial? I haven't been watching his trial very much. Just the occasional story here and there. But from what I read it was all ridiculous nonsense. Supposedly showing his tiny penis and joking about how small it was while asking women to go to bed with him. Anyone got an idea of the serious attack he's supposed to have done to get himself 8 years? I just hope he hasn't got 8 years for stupid nonsense like that ^^^^^. But I don't have that much faith in the British justice system so I wouldn't put it past them to give him a ridiculous sentence even without a serious assault.'" It might help if a) you followed the trial before making yourself look foolish and b) read the summing up by the judge before dismissing the case in such a trivial way. It's clear from the judge's summing up and also from what reporters and experts have said, that the evidence was strong. www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/J ... ifford.pdf In terms of the offences some are taking far more seriously under the 2003 legislation and carry much tougher sentences. For example rape which is what some of the charges he was found guilty of are now. Once you recognise all of the above you might actually realise that the BJS is excellent. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best systems in the world which he served us well for many years.

Quote Lord God Jose Mourinho="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Is that 10 years for his vile, nasty story peddling with 2 years taken off for the stress of this stupid trial? I haven't been watching his trial very much. Just the occasional story here and there. But from what I read it was all ridiculous nonsense. Supposedly showing his tiny penis and joking about how small it was while asking women to go to bed with him. Anyone got an idea of the serious attack he's supposed to have done to get himself 8 years? I just hope he hasn't got 8 years for stupid nonsense like that ^^^^^. But I don't have that much faith in the British justice system so I wouldn't put it past them to give him a ridiculous sentence even without a serious assault.'" It might help if a) you followed the trial before making yourself look foolish and b) read the summing up by the judge before dismissing the case in such a trivial way. It's clear from the judge's summing up and also from what reporters and experts have said, that the evidence was strong. www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/J ... ifford.pdf In terms of the offences some are taking far more seriously under the 2003 legislation and carry much tougher sentences. For example rape which is what some of the charges he was found guilty of are now. Once you recognise all of the above you might actually realise that the BJS is excellent. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best systems in the world which he served us well for many years.

8 years is not enough for this arrogant sexual predator. Far from being deeply ashamed of his actions his arrogance shows his contempt for the process and most of all his victims.



A truly odious individual who - hopefully - will get some of his own medicine during his four year vacation.