What were you doing 45 years ago?

[SquareDaff]

Given the latest "post Saville" arrest of "Ken Barlow" for offences in 1967, can any of you remember? Personally I wasn't even born. How do you go about proving where you were then given that, as Roach is 81, his alibi (if he has one) could be 6ft under? On the flip side - how do you prove he did the deed and get justice? It could just be someone jumping on the "lets give a try at an out of court settlement" band wagon, with a side of "trial by media".

Am I alone in thinking that the whole Yew tree and "offshots" (forgive the pun) operation has got slightly ridiculous and is rapidly descending into farce?

 

[Lee_M]

Am I alone in thinking that the whole Yew tree and "offshots" (forgive the pun) operation has got slightly ridiculous and is rapidly descending into farce?

nope, I'm with you on that

BTW I was 5, so no idea what I was doing,

then again I also have no idea what I was doing on May 1st 1977,1987,1997 or 2007 either

 

[byegad]

Probably having sex with my then girlfriend. IIRC we did a lot of that!

 

[Fnaar]

I was 6, so I was probably making mud pies or summat.

 

[theclaud]

Given the latest "post Saville" arrest of "Ken Barlow" for offences in 1967, can any of you remember? Personally I wasn't even born. How do you go about proving where you were then given that, as Roach is 81, his alibi (if he has one) could be 6ft under? On the flip side - how do you prove he did the deed and get justice? It could just be someone jumping on the "lets give a try at an out of court settlement" band wagon, with a side of "trial by media".

Am I alone in thinking that the whole Yew tree and "offshots" (forgive the pun) operation has got slightly ridiculous and is rapidly descending into farce?

In what way? You might not forget so easily what happened on a given day in 1967, or '77, or '87, or '97, if that was when you were raped as a 15-year-old.

 

[EltonFrog]

I really don't know what to a make of it. If someone was abused 45 years ago why wait until now to deal with it? Bearing mind the time we lived in then, I can understand why no one would say anything at the time. I can understand why no one would say anything ten years later, I can understand why no one would say anything twenty years later, but by the late eighties we all bit more enlightened by then, I hope, I think, why didn't the victim come forward then? I really do not understand it all.

 

[theclaud]

I really don't know what to a make of it. If someone was abused 45 years ago why wait until now to deal with it? Bearing mind the time we lived in then, I can understand why no one would say anything at the time. I can understand why no one would say anything ten years later, I can understand why no one would say anything twenty years later, but by the late eighties we all bit more enlightened by then, I hope, I think, why didn't the victim come forward then? I really do not understand it all.

Obviously not, if it's now 2013 and people are still coming out with this kind of bullshit.

 

[SquareDaff]

In what way? You might not forget so easily what happened on a given day in 1967, or '77, or '87, or '97, if that was when you were raped as a 15-year-old.

I agree. In the circumstances you give you'd likely remember that day for the rest of your life. But having waited for 45 years what do you hope to get out of it? It's extremely unlikely there'd be any physical evidence (unless there was an unwanted pregnancy as a result). Essentially it's your word against their's and if they're going to rape a minor they're not going to worry about lying in court? Any witnesses are unlikely to remember anything without being "led" and the whole thing is so mainstream now the accused can probably quite rightly state he's not getting his fair/impartial trial.

All you're really doing is dragging someones name through the mud - but then I think we'd all be very naive if we think all the accused are actually guilty! How do the innocent fight back?

 

[Globalti]

I was 12 so I was probably running around the fields engaged in gang warfare at boarding school.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I really don't know what to a make of it. If someone was abused 45 years ago why wait until now to deal with it? Bearing mind the time we lived in then, I can understand why no one would say anything at the time. I can understand why no one would say anything ten years later, I can understand why no one would say anything twenty years later, but by the late eighties we all bit more enlightened by then, I hope, I think, why didn't the victim come forward then? I really do not understand it all.

I have the feeling that a good number did say what happened but the Savile case points to how people, BBC and police, closed ranks and refused to believe the reports.

 

[EltonFrog]

Obviously not, if it's now 2013 and people are still coming out with this kind of bullshit.

Apparently so. Its a crime that these people were not investigated at the time, and dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure better late than never is appropriate.

 

[colly]

I think if you were raped or had something terrible happen even as long as 45 years ago you would probably remember details of that day, before and after the event, for the rest of your life.
As far as the claims made against Bill Roach maybe it's his recent potty claims about victims being somehow responsible due to actions in previous lives.
The final straw/insult.

 

[theclaud]

I agree. In the circumstances you give you'd likely remember that day for the rest of your life. But having waited for 45 years what do you hope to get out of it? It's extremely unlikely there'd be any physical evidence (unless there was an unwanted pregnancy as a result). Essentially it's your word against their's and if they're going to rape a minor they're not going to worry about lying in court? Any witnesses are unlikely to remember anything without being "led" and the whole thing is so mainstream now the accused can probably quite rightly state he's not getting his fair/impartial trial.

All you're really doing is dragging someones name through the mud - but then I think we'd all be very naive if we think all the accused are actually guilty! How do the innocent fight back?

Eh? It's a specific accusation. Physical evidence is not the only kind of evidence. There's no reason (other than the standard range of prejudices and myths that victims have always had to deal with) to believe in a sudden epidemic of false allegation - the far more likely explanation is that victims who have long felt (correctly) that they would not be believed, or that no-one would care, are finally feeling empowered to talk about what happened to them. The reason everyone is rattled is that many men have been used to getting away with casual sexual assault for years - men who don't see themselves as sex criminals and who resent having to answer for their actions. Tough.

 

[ayceejay]

In 1967 and before what is now seen as abuse was commonplace and I doubt that those abused realized that their uncle/dad/granddad was not supposed to be doing that, when 'abuse' became highly publicized I think a lot of people became aware of incidents they had pushed to the pack of their mind. Rape is quite different I think. The age of consent means that anyone beneath this age is considered (by law) unable to make the decision, so even if they accept a mature persons advances this is considered rape. In my opinion the innocence and vulnerability of children is for adults to protect NOT exploit although some find this too difficult to resist and it is often up to other adults to point this out, when we fail to do this you get an epidemic like Saville spreading unchecked which further reinforced the belief among the abused that this behavior is normal.

 

[SquareDaff]

Eh? It's a specific accusation.

Someone could accuse me of doing something 20 years ago. Just because they accuse me doesn't mean I actually did it. And if I was famous, the media splattered it all over the front pages before it was proven, it destroyed my marriage, career and mentally scarred my kids for life - what justice would I/they get?

The reason everyone is rattled is that many men have been used to getting away with casual sexual assault for years - men who don't see themselves as sex criminals and who resent having to answer for their actions.

When did sex crime just become a "man" thing?

Tough.

I'm sure the falsely accused (and there will be some just as I'm certain there will be some guilty too) will find great solace in your attitude.

As someone else has eluded to - we're judging actions from the 60's with this decades morals. While this doesn't mean it was right the it would still have had an affect on the accusseds moral compass. What was socially "acceptable" back then isn't now. With the way this whole "operation" is going loads of headmasters must be bricking themselves. I mean, caning an 11 year olds backside. That's some sort of sick sexual fantasy now isn't it??!?!