• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Official Paedo Discussion Megathread v2

There are a lot of groups on Twitter connected with historic child abuse in childrens 'care' homes and they quite often accuse politicians of the day being involved in the abuse and some of them are still around now.
If what they say is true then it makes you wonder why we don't hear about it on the media.
Is it because these political figures are in positions of power or maybe certain people are worried that if charges were brought against them that they could spill dirty little secrets about others in their circle
 
I saw a Dispatches documentary about what Cyril Smith got up to a while back but it seems they had to wait until after he died to get it produced. Politicians tend to sue whether they are in the right or the wrong which is bound to make the media nervous about saying anything. Same would apply to many other "powerful" (well rich) people I'm sure. I really do think what has come out is the tip of a very grubby iceberg indeed, unfortunately. I guess it was inevitible really with so much media hysteria about the whole issue. For a very long time (more or less forever until really quite recently) these kind of things were just hushed up and brushed under the carpet. Times were not safer in the past - it's just that hardly anybody got prosecuted. Or even charged. It makes it look like an epidemic but all it really is is catching up on the work that shoud have taken place at the time. Maybe at least some victims can get some kind of justice all these years later but millions dating back to the year dot never will.
 
TV weatherman Fred Talbot on child sex chargesFred Talbot Fred Talbot worked on the ITV programme This Morning
TV weather presenter Fred Talbot has been charged with the sexual abuse of schoolchildren between 1968 and 1983.

The former teacher is accused of nine offences of indecent assault and one serious sexual assault against a total of five complainants, Greater Manchester Police said.

Four of the alleged victims attended Altrincham Grammar School for Boys and one was at a Newcastle school.

Mr Talbot, 64, is due to appear before Manchester magistrates next month.

Six counts of indecent assault relate to one alleged victim at a school where Mr Talbot previously taught in Newcastle, police said.

'Public interest'

The other offences relate to four alleged victims from Altrincham Grammar School for Boys, where Mr Talbot also taught.

Nazir Afzal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "We have carefully considered all the evidence gathered by Greater Manchester Police in relation to allegations from five complainants that Fred Talbot sexually assaulted them between the 1960s and 1980s.

"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Talbot to be charged with 10 sexual offences relating to five complainants, three of whom were under 16 years of age at the time."

Mr Talbot, of Bowdon, is best known for his work on the ITV programme This Morning in the late 80s and 90s when it was hosted by Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan.

He was also the weatherman on ITV's Granada Reports but has not appeared on the show since the claims emerged last year.
 
In this case it looks like it had nothing to do with being a minor celebrity cos it all seems to date back to his teaching days. The fact it doesn't relate to his "celebrity" status is hardly a surprise given those jumpers he wore on This Morning, mind.
 
In this case it looks like it had nothing to do with being a minor celebrity cos it all seems to date back to his teaching days. The fact it doesn't relate to his "celebrity" status is hardly a surprise given those jumpers he wore on This Morning, mind.

yeah true i can hardly imagine any teenyboppers being startstruck by Fred Talbot.
 
DLT: Savile abuse 'worst crime'

Dave Lee Travis has told a jury that he would have reported Jimmy Savile to police if he had known that the TV star was a paedophile, saying: "It is the worst crime in the world."

The veteran DJ told London's Southwark Crown Court that although "people automatically assume" he must have got on with Savile because they were both in showbusiness, they never really had a conversation.

Travis, who is on trial accused of indecently assaulting 10 women and sexually assaulting another, said he did not know where Savile lived or have his phone number.

Answering questions from Stephen Vullo, for the defence, he said: "I, like other people, did think 'he seems to like young girls'. He was always surrounded by girls and by that I mean girls of 16, 17, 18.

"But I don't think that anyone knew what was going on as far as him being a paedophile.

"In all honesty, if I had known that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile I would have been the first to get him arrested because it is the worst crime in the world as far as I am concerned."

Travis, who appeared under his birth name David Griffin, told the jury about his time as a rising star radio DJ in the 1960s and how he took over the BBC Radio 1 Breakfast Show in 1978.

He said that at its peak the show had 15 million listeners and he explained how he had gone on to present Top of the Pops on television for "100 to 150 shows".

He compared the nerves he had felt presenting the Eurovision song contest to those he felt giving evidence in his trial.

The 68-year-old, from Buckinghamshire, denies 13 indecent assaults and one sexual assault, dating back to 1976 and the height of his fame.

The alleged offences occurred when he was working as a BBC DJ, as a broadcaster with Classic Gold radio, while appearing on Top Of The Pops and when starring in panto.

Travis said before his arrest in November 2012 he had never been arrested for anything. Travis also said he had no police cautions or convictions.

"I must have had a speeding offence somewhere in my life," he said. "I have not been arrested for anything or cautioned for anything."

Speaking about what it was like to work at Radio 1 in the late 60s and early 70s he said: "It was the golden years on Radio 1, I think it was true to say at that particular station, as opposed to Radios 2,3 and 4.

"We had so much fun. Everyone was popping in and seeing other people in that office we were talking about this and that.. It was a really fun atmosphere."

Asked by his defence barrister Stephen Vullo if pranks played at Radio 1 were "part of the fun" Travis responded "oh yes, yes,yes."

He recalled a time when he was setting a needle on a record when David Hamilton had walked in. "He said 'hi' he said 'I don't like this record and he lifted the needle. Oh my heart jumped," Travis told the jury.

"From what I recall he had arranged it with an engineer to be playing a tape of the record at exactly the same time to freak me out."

Travis described claims that he was a sexual predator as "nonsensical" but admitted he was "tactile".

"I don't do that, if I like someone I will hug them and give them a kiss because the whole world needs that," he said.

"Perhaps hugging is something which can be misconstrued by some people or if people are looking for an excuse they can say 'he touched us'. I did hug a lot girls.

"I do not have a predatory nature with women, I have a cuddly nature.

"Maybe that's what this is all about, but I am not predatory.

"If I really like somebody I will put my arm around them and I might give them a peck on the cheek, I even do that with men, to make them feel comfortable and welcome to the place.

"But nowadays you are not allowed to do that, put your arms around people and hug them."

He said that "air kisses" were part of showbusiness, but denied that he considered it his right to touch people because he was famous or even that he was that big a star

"There are no unimportant people," Travis said. "I would never, never treat anybody as if they were under me or less than me.

"In my career I have met princesses, I have met the Queen, I have met the dustman - they are all the same to me. I just like people."

Dave Lee Travis complained that he had lost "work, money and health" due to sex abuse allegations while his wife suffered breast cancer, a jury has been told.

The veteran DJ and broadcaster told police he had been "s****ed backwards" due to the claims, jurors at London's Southwark Crown Court heard.

Travis, who is on trial accused of indecently assaulting 10 women and sexually assaulting another, described the claims as "c**p" during a police interview on September 18 last year.

Junior prosecutor Teresa Hay said: "Mr Travis said that for 10 months he had lost his money, work, his health, he has had back and knee operations and had suffered stress.

"Worse still, his wife had suffered breast cancer. She was through it now but stress is bad for someone who is going through that.

"This was costing him his job, his living and everything he has built up over 50 years.

"For him these allegations don't stand up. He and his wife had suffered badly."

He said his accuser was "out to make money" and asked: "Why wait 20 years until it comes out in one-sided press coverage?"

"This is just someone else who can smell money and is jumping into the game to see what they can get out of it," he told police.

Ms Hay said Travis, known as DLT, told police: "He has been s****ed backwards - he is selling his house to pay for solicitors and barristers.

"People might think he is a millionaire but his bank account is non-existent.

"His life has changed for the worse and he is full of anger.

"Even if he is acquitted he still won't be free. He is f*****.

Travis, 68, of Buckinghamshire, denies 13 indecent assaults and one sexual assault, dating back to 1976 and the height of his fame.

The alleged offending includes when he was working as a BBC DJ, as a broadcaster with Classic Gold radio, while appearing on Top Of The Pops, and when starring in panto.

The jury heard that Travis was questioned in relation to allegations that he groped a woman while dancing the Lambada at two British Airways parties in the early 1990s.

He told police he would provide musical entertainment or act as compere at such parties, dressed as a werewolf or Darth Vader, but could not remember those events in particular.

Asked about claims that he had told the woman she had "won the keys to his room", he claimed it was not the type of thing he would say.

He said it was "very easy to say there is no smoke without fire" and dismissed that idea as "rubbish".

Travis also told police that he had "great sympathy" with rape victims and had been involved in attempts to stop it in his work for children's charities.

"But he didn't see the similarity between this and grabbing a girl's bum in a dance," Ms Hay said
 
Roache cleared of one sex charge

_h366_w650_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg


Coronation Street star William Roache has been cleared of one of the seven historic sex allegations against him after the prosecution offered no further evidence.

The jury in his rape and indecent assault trial at Preston Crown Court was directed by the judge to return a not guilty verdict on the single count of indecent assault.

The allegation was one of two made by a woman who said she was aged 14 when Roache, who plays Ken Barlow in the ITV soap, twice made her perform a sexual act on him.

Giving evidence, the complainant said the actor first struck in the gents' toilets at Granada Studios in Manchester in the summer of 1965.

Jurors were then shown a letter and signed photograph that Roache, 81, had sent to her after that alleged incident in which he asked to her write back to him when she returned to school.

The woman claimed later that same year she was picked up by the actor from the studios in his Rolls- Royce and they had a conversation of a sexual nature.

She said she thought that she had also been indecently assaulted in his car but she had ''no actual memory'' of the episode.

The judge in the case, Mr Justice Holroyde, said: "In relation to that episode the witness was not giving evidence that it did happen, she was giving evidence that she was thinking it did happen and that is not a sufficient evidential basis for the conviction of an offence."

Roache, 81, of Wilmslow, Cheshire, remains on trial over two counts of rape and four counts of indecent assault involving the five complainants who were aged 16 and under on dates between 1965 and 1971.

He denies all the charges.
 
Me and my mate were discussing these celeb sex court cases that are going on now.
We were thinking that how on earth can people prove that they were assaulted by someone when the assaults all happened so many years ago.
It must be very difficult to convince people without having any physical evidence unless they had made a complaint to the police at the time of the alleged assaults.
 
Was thinking the same thing, not sure how it's all done if there isn't any evidence.

However some guy got put away because the woman could accurately describe a birthmark on the guy's knob. Presumably he had to whip it out in court and flail it about, showing off the birthmark :D
 
i thought one of the alleged cases against Roach was weird, he allegedly assaulted a girl in the works toliets and then on another later occasion she got into his car with him and he abused her again. Now why the fuck would anyone get into a car with someone that had allegedly allready previosuly sexually assaluted them :? Does not compute. :sus::sus:

ah i see above he was cleared of that one. At least that makes sense now.
 
"Are you aged over 60 and have you been on television during the last 40 years? If so, you may be eligible for a free Paedophile Allegation Trial! Call now!".
 
i thought one of the alleged cases against Roach was weird, he allegedly assaulted a girl in the works toliets and then on another later occasion she got into his car with him and he abused her again. Now why the fuck would anyone get into a car with someone that had allegedly allready previosuly sexually assaluted them :? Does not compute. :sus::sus:

Actually it's very common for victims of sexual abuse to "go along" with their abuser on subsequent occasions. Bear in mind these are young people - children - who are likely to be intimidated, in awe of (in celeb cases) or simply just being children and doing what an adult tells them to do.

I don't know any of the details of this particular case so have no particular opinion, but the broader point remains that it comes down to a balance of power and control.
 
Some interesting stuff found on this site. Peter Tatchell the gay rights campaigner holding a placard stating that 'not all sex involving children is unwanted'
http://labour25.com/

That picture is the product of a photoshopping session, just like the one above it (Hariett Harman wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "this is what a paedophile supporter looks like"). Tatchell never held such a placard. He did write those words in a letter to the guardian, but if you look at the context he was saying something quite different.

In 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent to 14 to adjust for studies that showed nearly half of all young people—gay and straight—had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old and to exempt them from being "treated as criminals by the law". The campaign claimed there should be no prosecution if the difference in ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years—and providing it accompanies earlier, more effective sex education.[56] He was quoted in the OutRage! press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them".[57] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun called it "a perverts' charter".[58]

In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about 'boy-love', calling the work "courageous" before writing:

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[59]
Tatchell has since reiterated that he does not condone adults having sex with children. On his own website, under Age of Consent, he writes: "My articles arguing for an 'age of consent' of 14 are motivated solely by a desire to reduce the criminalisation of under-16s who have consenting relationships with other young people of similar ages. I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16. But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register." [60]

On Tatchell own website he states " My Guardian letter cited examples of youths in Papuan tribes and some of my friends who, when they were under 16, had sex with adults (over 18s), but who do not feel they were harmed."[61]
 
Some interesting stuff found on this site. Peter Tatchell the gay rights campaigner holding a placard stating that 'not all sex involving children is unwanted'
http://labour25.com/

That picture is the product of a photoshopping session, just like the one above it (Hariett Harman wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "this is what a paedophile supporter looks like"). Tatchell never held such a placard. He did write those words in a letter to the guardian, but if you look at the context what he was saying is not quite so controversial.

In 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent to 14 to adjust for studies that showed nearly half of all young people—gay and straight—had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old and to exempt them from being "treated as criminals by the law". The campaign claimed there should be no prosecution if the difference in ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years—and providing it accompanies earlier, more effective sex education.[56] He was quoted in the OutRage! press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them".[57] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun called it "a perverts' charter".[58]

In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about 'boy-love', calling the work "courageous" before writing:

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.[59]
Tatchell has since reiterated that he does not condone adults having sex with children. On his own website, under Age of Consent, he writes: "My articles arguing for an 'age of consent' of 14 are motivated solely by a desire to reduce the criminalisation of under-16s who have consenting relationships with other young people of similar ages. I do not advocate teenagers having sex before the age of 16. But if they do have sex before their 16th birthday, they should not be arrested, given a criminal record and put on the sex offenders register." [60]

On Tatchell own website he states " My Guardian letter cited examples of youths in Papuan tribes and some of my friends who, when they were under 16, had sex with adults (over 18s), but who do not feel they were harmed."[61]

I had sexual experiences as a child, with other children of my own age. They were not unwanted and they caused me no harm.

Now I'm not sure about this academic book he was supporting, and I'm not setting out a full defence of Peter Tatchell and all he's ever said and done here, but that site you linked to appears to me to be a little sensationalist and deliberately muck raking, rather than looking at things calmly and objectively. If they have to rely on doctored photographs to make a point, that right there is a problem IMO.
 
Last edited:
I can't say whether it is photoshopped or not just found it an interesting site.
Quite a bit of info on the web though about Harriet Harmen and her links to P.I.E in the early 1980's.
 
The jury in the rape and indecent assault trial of Coronation Street star William Roache has retired to consider its verdicts.

Roache, 81, who plays Ken Barlow in the ITV soap, is accused of using his fame and popularity to exploit five youngsters between the mid-60s and early 70s.

His trial at Preston Crown Court, now in its fourth week, has heard from five women who claim he sexually assaulted them when they were 16 or under, either at Granada Studios in Manchester, in his car or at properties he owned.

In denying all the offences, Roache said he did not even know any of his accusers and had never had a sexual interest in under-age girls.

The prosecution says the actor was "sticking to his script" in lying and if he was telling the truth, he was the victim of a "huge, distorted and perverse witch-hunt" .

Anne Whyte QC depicted Roache as a young man with "looks, fame and appetite" at the relevant time, which gave him the "motivation and the opportunity to behave improperly''.

She said his fame "put him out of reach" with his belief that none of the women would be brave enough to report him.

"Decades of silence" followed but times had changed now, she told the jury of eight women and four men.

Apart from two of the complainants who were sisters, there was no evidence to suggest any of the women who had come forward with similar allegations had known each other.

Louise Blackwell QC, defending, said the case against her client was "nonsense", with the trial haunted by the "spectre" of Jimmy Savile.

She went through each of the accounts of the complainants to point out "contradictions and inconsistencies".

Glowing testimonies about Roache's "caring" and "lovely" nature were given in evidence by three of his Coronation Street co-stars, including Anne Kirkbride, who plays his on-screen wife Deirdre.

Miss Blackwell said it was "nonsense" to assert that Roache departed from his usual character and behaviour to become a sexual "risk-taker" between the mid-60s and early 70s.

The barrister suggested to the jury that fair investigations did not take place into allegations of such nature against a celebrity in the "post-Savile crisis of conscience".

Roache, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, is accused of two counts of rape and four counts of indecent assault on various dates between 1965 and 1972.

He is said to have raped one of the complainants at his then bungalow in Lancashire when she was a virgin and raped her again in an adjoining cottage he owned.

Three of the indecent assaults were said to have taken place inside Granada Studios - in the gents toilets, the ladies toilets and a dressing room - while the fourth is alleged to have happened in his Rolls-Royce when he was said to have given a lift home to a complainant.

Before the jurors retired, trial judge Mr Justice Holroyde reminded them of the prosecution's central claims, made by Anne Whyte QC in her closing speech.

"The reality in the case is that either Mr Roache is lying or the complainants are," he said.

"It's not just that Mr Roache denies that the acts alleged against him ever occurred, he denies they ever could have occurred, because, for example, he says 'There never was any young female in my house or dressing room or in my car'.

"And so, says Miss Whyte, Mr Roache's case is that the complainants have not only made up the allegations, but also made up all the surrounding circumstances they describe."

The judge reminded the jury of the question posed by Miss Whyte - who has most to gain from lying? - and the prosecutor's answer: "Obviously, the well-loved star of a very popular soap opera."

He also reminded the jury of the words of Louise Blackwell QC, defending Roache.

The defence case says it is not enough to simply regard the bare allegations the complainants make - the jury must look closely at the "inconsistencies and errors" in the evidence.

The judge pointed to a central argument in the defence case: Roache's glowing character testimonies from fellow co-stars on Coronation Street.

Mr Justice Holroyde said the defence argued it "simply cannot be right" that the defendant committed the offences, then stopped and not only did nothing wrong for 40 years but also "attracted the sort of character evidence you heard from witnesses".

In weighing the arguments up, the judge again warned the jury to put emotion aside.

He said: "I will make it plain to you, as I have throughout, you are going to have to weigh up the witnesses and decide which evidence is truthful and reliable and which is not.

"You will remember quite early on in my directions how I warned you that you must set your emotions to one side.

"You must approach all this with a clear head and make a dispassionate assessment of the evidence you have heard."

The jury was sent home and will return to resume its deliberations at 10am tomorrow (Thursday)
 
Top