Bill Roache - what next?

He did 'admit', ie. boast about having had 1,000 lovers on the Piers Morgan show (how do you keep count, I wonder?). Perhaps some of them were not as willing as some others,or younger. He is now distinctly unhinged.

Seems like it, anno. I bet there are a lot of jittery 'icons' at the moment. Apparently this goes back to 1967 and the rape of a 15-year-old girl?

Hopefully there'll be many national icons above this sort of behavioiur - think Attenborough and Dimbleby. Seems to be people mostly on the show biz end of the icon spectrum

What still disturbs me is the length of time it has taken for accusations such as these to emerge. We are talking 45 years here. I can understand finding it hard to accuse or be believed at the time, as fortunately society has advanced since then, but 45 years? How on earth can either side have a fair hearing after so long? If all the accusers are to be believed, everybody was at it in the 60's. Perhaps they were or just perhaps there is an element of seeing a bandwaggon and jumping on it?
I can remember how in the 60's "groupies" threw themselves at pop singers and show biz personalities. My friend and I made a dead set at a group I think called the Baron Knights (fortunately they weren't impressed by 2 14-year-old schoolgirls!) How we would have handled things if we had been "successful" I shudder to think. A third friend did achieve a "snog" round the back of their van - was she assaulted/molested/abused? I don't think so. So part of me thinks Ugh - nauseating slimy men taking advantage of girls and another part of me is thinking - Did some of them (literally) ask for it?

Difficult to know what to think. They probably fall into two groups - the girls who were really abused/molested again their wishes and those who threw themselves at 'stars' and are now (as someone said) jumping on the bandwagon for their 5 minutes of fame.

Something that made me realise how much things have changed is seeing a recording of the Vanessa Paradis appearance on Top of the Pops promoting Joe le Taxi [sp]. Probably wouldn't be allowed now [along with Britneys 'Baby One More Time' video].

There are quite a few women with evidence of historical abuse when they were under-age. They had children as a result.

I feel disturbed at the way things are going now with all these accusations of historical abuse.

I think it was Freddy Star who has been arrested for groping someone forty years ago.

Whilst all this is going on, how many small children are being regularly abused/raped with no hope of rescue?

I've been a feminist for years but I find myself becoming increasingly impatient, even angry at the present situation.

Petallus do you think the child protection teams are being diverted from their usual tasks to concentrate on Savile and others? I hadn't picked that up, but if they are, that is a great injustice. Having worked with the police on large investigative child abuse projects, I have found that they have the manpower and bring in extra support, cancel leave, pay overtime to meet demand. I hope that's what is happening here.

I don't know about child protection teams in particular.

But public attention/outrage, media time, police time, court time, probably large sums of money, are being diverted to these cases of historic abuse which surely must have some effect on what is happening in the cases of real paedophile behaviour (that is involving pre-pubescent children) in the here and now.

My stance on this is that, if children and their protectors see justice being done, even after many years, it will empower then and give them the courage to complain, too. Don't forget, there aren't just these celeb investigations, the police and social services have also been dealing with the North Wales childrens' homes and have uncovered abuse in many more homes than originally found. That is historical abuse, too.

Courts have the resources to open for longer hours and at weekends. There is flexibility in the system to deal with this extra demand. Yes, it costs money, but so does treatment for mental illness, alcohol and drug abuse, self harm, need for counselling and all the other unwanted consequences of unprosecuted abuse and untreated sex offenders. Who are we to deny justice and compensation to the victims of historical sex abuse? We have to do the right thing as a civilised country.

I suspect being a celebrity is part of the problem; vulnerable young people would feel flattered to be noticed by a celebrity.
Many of these instances might at the time have involved rape by under age co-coercion rather than serious physical force. Anyone who indulged in sexual activity with a celebrity were then possibly reluctant to complain out of sheer embarrassment.

Stage door Johnny's and the casting couch perhaps.
There was a radio program the other morning which talked about Diaghilev and Nijinsky in the early 1900s being involved in giving or taking sexual favours for the best role in a particular ballet.

Back in the 1960s very few would have wanted to talk about what had happened. It can often take years for children to complain about such abuse from their fathers.

There are possibly a very few people who might want to make false allegations on an attention seeking basis.

William Roach has been charged though which suggests that the CPS thinks the case is strong enough to proceed.

Compensation when?

I wondered about that.

Will people be able to sue for compensation?

I'm not sure that the link between sexual abuse (especially milder forms such as a grope or consensual sex at age 15) and mental illness etc. is as straightforward as that.

when an excellent response once again.
Historical sex abuse deserves as much time and resources as any other, more recent abuse, in my opinion. when mentioned the current inquiry into abuse at children's homes in Wales; many of the people involved (people who were horrifically abused) have been seeking an opportunity to be 'heard' for many, many years; some had just about given up and now have hope that, at last, someone will be brought to justice. Along the way there will possibly be some who may jump on the bandwagon - it's the job of the police and CPS to sift evidence and then decide on the probability of securing a prosecution.

I know we have had this discussion before so I apologise, but I still feel there is a huge difference between a pubescent girl - 15 going on 25, possible sexually active - who "throws herself" at a pop star/celebrity and a child who is genuinely the subject of abuse from a parent/uncle/family "friend". I am not saying this has any relevance to the Bill Roache affair as I do not know the details and I also recognise that the law has to set limits regarding age - but honestly, there is a difference isn'there?

I agree wholeheartedly that in examples like the children's homes in Wales, where horrific abuse took place over many years, there is never too much that can be done to bring perpetrators to justice and alleviate the suffering of their victims (however long ago the offences took place).

However, that's not what we are talking about in these recent media sensationalised cases is it?

And that is my point.

gracesmum petallus there have been many victims of 'groupie' behaviour, and 15 year old girls thowing themselves at adult men who should not have exploited them, but instead used their celeb status to keep themselves immune from the consequences. Probably, many of those underage girls thought little more of it if they came out of those experiences unscathed, but they will understand now how near they came to being harmed, how lucky they weren't, and that to be made to engage in sexual activity against their better judgement or without consent could have had nasty consequences. If any of these women have recently complained, the detectives investigating their complaint will work through this issue with them, and very few would decide to continue with a prosecution, knowing that cross-examination would elicit a lack of continuing evidence that their lives had been adversely affected. So, as gracesmum says, there is a difference, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinkng that's who these complainants are.

The women who DO complain and see it through to prosecution will have suporting evidence - they will know intimate details they might not have otherwise known, maybe had abortions, treatment for STIs, ongoing issues with the impact of having been sexually abused, some may have had children as a result. Despite compellng evidence, the rate of acquittals is still biased in favour of the abuser.

The hidden side of this historical celeb abuse is a phenomenon that has been found through working with sex offenders. A number of celeb sons have also become abusers, having witnessed all the bed-hopping and indiscriminate promiscuity, and learned the wrong way to behave, so ended up being prosecuted themselves. There have been a couple reported in the press in the last few months.

When detectives raid family homes and remove computers and bags of other stuff, they're looking for lifestyle indicators of abusive, entitled attitudes to sex, which will persist many years after the perpetrator has committed the abuse being omplained about. No single factor indicates guilt (not unless there is existing DNA or photographic evidence) and the CPS have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Very few complainants who undertake this daunting exercise will be doing it lightly, not when they're faced with the doubts of a jury, the retribution of the media and an angry celeb.

That we don't actually know what we're talking about is the point Petallus. The police and CPS do know the details and have decided there is enough of a case to warrant further investigation. It is usually harrowing for an abuse survivor to bring into the light something that may have been buried for many, many years. A fifteen year old is a child - let's not blame children for the acts committed against them by adults please!!!!

Sorry, Petallus missed the compensation issue. Yes, some victims will be awarded compensation and/or damages. There is a financial ceiling that has reduced in recent times. Wealthy people convicted of inflicting harm will be made to pay, otherwise it comes from public monies. I remember reading a breakdown of stats of awards to adult sexual abuse victims a few years back. The amounts were derisory and many recipients didn't necessarily want the money for themselves and donated it to child protection or other charities.

Bear in mind too, that many of the current allegations will be in respect of abuse that was previously reported, but not acted upon by the authorities. It's not always the case that it's taken some victims decades to speak out. Often, it's because society and the criminal justice system have taken decades to have the courage to act.

Sir David did give me a little squeeze around my waist (I used to have one) when I was having a photograph taken with him - hope that doesn't count!!!!!

Gracesmum - REALLY- they came from not far away from where I hail. I would never lunge at a Baron Knight, My best friend once grabbed a Moody Blue outside the Marquee in London. Squeeling "Look I have a Moody Blue. The Moody Blue was a little Moody Red.

It's an interesting question: what counts?

When I was a teenager my life was made a misery by a married man who worked in the same office and who used to regularly corner me in the safe (it was a Bank) and slip his arm around my waist.

He did this in full view of other staff members. People used to laugh.

An old man (relative of a friend) fondled my breasts once when I was staying at his house, aged about 13.

I would be rubbish at making any accusations 45 years on - can't even get the name right. "Our" group were distinctly sub even Baron Knights and I remember now they were called The Castle Kings. Almost certainly sank without trace.
Which brings me to another point, again a generalisation and no reflection on any incidents recalled on this thread, but how accurate are our memories? I realise that everybody is going to say How could a person forget a sexual assault, but surely a complaint could have been made at some stage in the interim?