The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Call Me [to Court] No.1

Comments

  6. I know this can be quite an emotive debate, but I see a “witch hunt” as something groundless and unnecessary, done hurriedly to meet the mob’s immediate need for a scapegoat/sacrificial lamb.

    The recent accusations are decades late and should have happened at the time – but isn’t that the whole point? Perhaps it’s only now that those that feel that there may be some chance of being taken seriously. It may seem like a grim procession of all of our former heroes being all of a sudden accountable for things they might have done – but it’s not actually very many.

    Let’s take an example. In 1965, you went backstage to get Arthur “where’s me washboard?” Atkinson’s autograph. He was very pleased to see you. He locked the door, groped you, pulled down your knickers or undies and went for it. He would then say that you were not to tell anyone, or you would be in big trouble – after all, who would believe you? Arthur might well have been visited by groupies regularly and this is exactly what they wanted to happen – but on an occasion like this, you have been a victim of sexual abuse and would be entitled to make a criminal complaint – and should have done so in 1965. If Arthur is still alive, he should be called to account in 2015.

    • The problem is that the above starts from a presumption of guilt.

      It has thus far not been possible to prove the relevant claims against the majority of the accused, which is what causes the suspicion that the CPS has overplayed its hand.

      • Bingo, what’s the legal position on a fair trial for defendants accused of something that’s alleged to have happened as long as forty-five years ago? How can anyone prepare a robust defence after so much time has gone by? It’s not reasonable to assume that they’ll have kept diaries (“Yes, your honour, as my contemporaneous notes here show, on the night in question, which was the second Saturday in February 1967, after the show at the alleged scene of the incident – the East Grinstead Rialto, now sadly demolished – I returned to my economical but cosy digs alone at a quarter to ten, where I had a nice cup of tea from my thermos, filled my hot water bottle and then went to bed, where I read a most interesting article in Reveille about Fanny Cradock’s holiday hideaway on the Isle of Skye and then went to sleep.”). It is practically impossible that phone records or any Monica’s-blue-dress type forensic evidence can be produced. And even many potential witnesses for the defence, if the accused is fortunate enough to remember anything at all about the day in question – theatre jobsworths, etc. – are probably dead or untraceable by now.

        But if some woman now in her sixties says that she was groped as a teen by a top popster in 1967, perhaps arriving for her interview with D.I. Alan Yewtree with a mate in tow to pipe up on cue “It’s the truth, hofficer, she was groped good and proper and that’s a fact! I remember it clear as a bell, like it was yesterday,” then that constitutes grounds for arrest, publicising the name of the accused and forwarding the case to the CPS because there is clearly a “realistic prospect of conviction”, does it?

        Bollocks, bullshit and balderdash.

        • Quite.

          We discussed all this stuff when the arrests started happening. You made the precise argument above, and I suggested the proof of the pudding would be in the success or failure of the prosecutions.

          Well, the pudding has transpired to be a shit soufflé – you were quite right.

    • Apart from sullying the fine name of a leading washboard maestro, that’s a very good point.

      I’m currently reading Dan Davies’ “In Plain Sight” biography of Jimmy Savile which details exactly that phenomenon, with the ‘legal age’ aspect not exactly being taboo, more something you did if you thought you’d get away with it – with police and other authority figures turning a blind eye (while quietly telling people like Savile to stop it so he wouldn’t get caught, not because it was wrong).

      So yes, the *ahem* “upfront” approach was what many girls were there for, and if they weren’t, then yes; it would be assault. Obviously that’s no reason to assume anything about these guys, but I’d hate to be the one to have to try and sort it out after all these decades.

      • Savile is another example of truth being far, far stranger than fiction. Pitch a similar fictional story to a publisher or film-maker and it would be rejected out of hand as being ludicrously far-fetched.

        • Definitely. The whole story is mind-blowing; how he moved through society – confidante of royalty/prime ministers etc – an icon of charitable “kindness” – and he was a totally depraved psycho. You wouldn’t bother putting that in a script; it’s just so ludicrous.

  7. Think of a ‘rawk’ star, big stadium tours, groupees, that sort of thing.
    Who’s the first you think of?
    Bet it wasn’t the ‘Silence Is Golden’ hit makers.

    I wonder if status and wealth, or a comparative lack of it, has anything to do with who Plod goes after?

    • I think I’ve commented along similar lines in the past – a high proportion of the accused do seem to come from the toupée’d, farah-flared, satin-bomber-jacketed end of the spectrum.

      My admiration for the major artists of the sixties and seventies has only increased – not only were they outrageously talented but morally sound too. Not one ever acted illegally where matters sexual are concerned. It really is wonderful.

  8. What has happened is that those who were apparently respectable, popular, showbiz, rather square individuals, have been the ones where some sort of case has been built, where there have been allegations, and in some cases, convictions, whereas those who in their time were thought to be some kind of threat to decent society, and supposedly a greater concern to parents of their fans, have ended up being largely absent from these revelations, albeit that there were those among them who indulged in dodgy activities, but so far no one seems to have felt they were abused or mistreated by them. I would imagine, if we accept that the police are looking to make amends for their failure over Savile, that they would be only too happy to nab a wealthy, big name in rock, for example, but in that case they would have to believe they could reap dividends there.

    • He’ll be advising them to make sure their trial is heard at the Court of King Caractacus, with all the ladies of the harem and the boys with the powder and the scintillating witches etc etc.

Leave a Reply