FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Jimmy Tarbuck

Jump to newest
 

By *unlovers OP   Couple
over a year ago

rotherham

All over the news about Jimmy Tarbuck

Whoever is going to be next and why is it all coming out all these years later

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Makes me wonder if people are just jumping on the bandwagon. How the heck can they prove guilt- or innocence- after all this time?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sadly due to it being in the public arena some sad people will jump on that ever rolling bandwagon ....

Also have to remember that in the 70s a gentle tap on the bottom was deemed ok ( not my opinion I may add ) nowadays - well its straight to court and you are done for sexual harassment !!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I will not begin to presume innocence or guilt - heaven knows theres enough trail by media going on.

But no one is asking the question about where all this is coming from, with celebrity after celebrity suddenly being called in for questioning and if there is actually any evidence or is it just heresay?

What worries me is if all of this is coming from old case files which were closed in the 70's due to insufficient evidence yet what we are seeing here is an attempt by the police authorities to get the skeletons out of their closets in light of the public outcry / backlash over the Saville affair.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Never did like Tarbuck, always thought he was slimy!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's all rather bizarre isn't it.

But sooner rather than later you just know some nasty person will lodge a false complaint and when found out it will bring into question every legitimate claim so far.

It might be 30/40 Years after these offences, but I support anyone who is brave enough to go through with this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Im waiting for rock stars to be named, groupies would have been easy prey!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Im waiting for rock stars to be named, groupies would have been easy prey! "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Seems to have been rife all those years ago,but the reason I think its coming out now is people are finding the strength to come out after the jimmy savile outcome,Back then when the celebrities in question were very popular,i don't think people would think they would have believed them.what I don't think is right is the celebrities being splashed all over the news,before they've been to trial.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ashful BazMan
over a year ago

poole dorset

Jimmy Tarbuck will be telling Operation Yewtree officers that the junior golf clubs and kids clothes they'll find in the car boot, belong to Ronnie Corbett.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"Jimmy Tarbuck will be telling Operation Yewtree officers that the junior golf clubs and kids clothes they'll find in the car boot, belong to Ronnie Corbett.

"

How do you know this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *averiMan
over a year ago

Swindon to bristol

innocent until proved guilty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercedes62Woman
over a year ago

Northampton

I do feel that there names should not be put into the public domain until they are charged with the offence.

Difficult i guess if the media gets hold of the fact that someone has been taken into a police station for questionig.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kmale421Man
over a year ago

wirral


"I do feel that there names should not be put into the public domain until they are charged with the offence.

Difficult i guess if the media gets hold of the fact that someone has been taken into a police station for questionig."

The problem is, they shouldn't be treated any differently to any other member of the public if they are arrested for whatever offence. In effect they aren't being treated differently by the legal process, in that if you or I were arrested, there would be a record of that happening and in high profile crime cases you'll often see on TV, radio and papers the naming and pictures of such and such a suspect. Therefore to give celebrities privacy, you'd have to apply that rule to everyone and infact with Rolf Harris, for some reason the press chose not to publish the fact for a few weeks.

In addition as time goes on, the cases have been heading to court and the celebrities are starting to become criminals such as Stuart Hall and while not taken through court because they were dead, Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith, the former Liberal MP for Rochdale.

I suspect there'll be many more of these old men whom will spend their latter years of life paying for the crimes they committed as younger men.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Plenty more have been arrested that the press have not reported yet. If the media like you they will cut you some slack

The press knew George Michael was gay years before the story broke. He played the game with them so they left him alone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercedes62Woman
over a year ago

Northampton


"I do feel that there names should not be put into the public domain until they are charged with the offence.

Difficult i guess if the media gets hold of the fact that someone has been taken into a police station for questionig.

The problem is, they shouldn't be treated any differently to any other member of the public if they are arrested for whatever offence. In effect they aren't being treated differently by the legal process, in that if you or I were arrested, there would be a record of that happening and in high profile crime cases you'll often see on TV, radio and papers the naming and pictures of such and such a suspect. Therefore to give celebrities privacy, you'd have to apply that rule to everyone and infact with Rolf Harris, for some reason the press chose not to publish the fact for a few weeks.

In addition as time goes on, the cases have been heading to court and the celebrities are starting to become criminals such as Stuart Hall and while not taken through court because they were dead, Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith, the former Liberal MP for Rochdale.

I suspect there'll be many more of these old men whom will spend their latter years of life paying for the crimes they committed as younger men."

If you re-read my comment you will see that i actually mentioned questioning and not arrested

0f course they should not be treated any differently than anyone else.

Yet for questioning and their name is leaked i feel this is wrong

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heWolfMan
over a year ago

warwickshire


"The press knew George Michael was gay years before the story broke. He played the game with them so they left him alone. "

Are you telling me that it was news to you when the story broke?

(Mind you, I can't talk, I was surprised when Rob Halford came out. Who knew? )

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kmale421Man
over a year ago

wirral


"I do feel that there names should not be put into the public domain until they are charged with the offence.

Difficult i guess if the media gets hold of the fact that someone has been taken into a police station for questionig.

The problem is, they shouldn't be treated any differently to any other member of the public if they are arrested for whatever offence. In effect they aren't being treated differently by the legal process, in that if you or I were arrested, there would be a record of that happening and in high profile crime cases you'll often see on TV, radio and papers the naming and pictures of such and such a suspect. Therefore to give celebrities privacy, you'd have to apply that rule to everyone and infact with Rolf Harris, for some reason the press chose not to publish the fact for a few weeks.

In addition as time goes on, the cases have been heading to court and the celebrities are starting to become criminals such as Stuart Hall and while not taken through court because they were dead, Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith, the former Liberal MP for Rochdale.

I suspect there'll be many more of these old men whom will spend their latter years of life paying for the crimes they committed as younger men.

If you re-read my comment you will see that i actually mentioned questioning and not arrested

0f course they should not be treated any differently than anyone else.

Yet for questioning and their name is leaked i feel this is wrong "

I wasn't critisimg your comment Mercedes, just really adding my thoughts to it.

My gut feel is like you say, it's wrong to name and shame someone when they are simply pulled in for questioning, however I guess it just goes with the process of being a famous celebrity. I guess living in the limelight means that anything that happens good or bad ends up as public property.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Don't name people who you "think" have done something or heard "rumours" they have done something.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Jimmy Tarbuck will be telling Operation Yewtree officers that the junior golf clubs and kids clothes they'll find in the car boot, belong to Ronnie Corbett.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"The press knew George Michael was gay years before the story broke. He played the game with them so they left him alone. "

Sorry dude, but it's not just about being "gay" or coming "out of the closet" though is it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"All over the news about Jimmy Tarbuck

Whoever is going to be next and why is it all coming out all these years later

"
££££££ springs to mind

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Prison Panto is just getting better and better

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I am finding it all strange. Unless there is proof or evidence isn't it just one word against the other especially after so long?

I think there is more going to be coming out of the woodwork, and who knows wether they will be telling the truth or just jumping on the bandwagon.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

It will not get to court unless the CPS have actual evidence they think may secure a conviction. A lot of evidence was, apparently, ignored in the past.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Which " celebrity " is going 2 b next? I mite b rong here? but, this woodn't hav came 2 lite about these " celebrities " IE, Max. Clifford. / Stuart. Hall. / Jimmy. Tarbuck. / Dave. Lee. Travis. 2 name afew. If it wasn't 4 the deceased, Jimmy. Saville. b-ing xposed as a " paedo...& predator "

Your thoughts? plz.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Ah, welcome back Mr ?

lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pecifically1Woman
over a year ago

Hull

It appears some of these cases were investigated at the time and insufficient evidence was available.

It begs the question are these cases being reinvestigated just in case? Most of these claims have come to light and people named on front pages of the newspapers, treated like criminals before any guilt has been proven many decades later. How can there be more evidence now than there was then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Which " celebrity " is going 2 b next? I mite b rong here? but, this woodn't hav came 2 lite about these " celebrities " IE, Max. Clifford. / Stuart. Hall. / Jimmy. Tarbuck. / Dave. Lee. Travis. 2 name afew. If it wasn't 4 the deceased, Jimmy. Saville. b-ing xposed as a " paedo...& predator "

Your thoughts? plz."

I wouldn't like to speculate ........ It would be inappropriate to do so in my opinion and it just fuels the compo bandwagon .........

I'm firmly in the innocent till proven guilty in a court of law and not the court of media

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Which " celebrity " is going 2 b next? I mite b rong here? but, this woodn't hav came 2 lite about these " celebrities " IE, Max. Clifford. / Stuart. Hall. / Jimmy. Tarbuck. / Dave. Lee. Travis. 2 name afew. If it wasn't 4 the deceased, Jimmy. Saville. b-ing xposed as a " paedo...& predator "

Your thoughts? plz."

dont speculate on a public forum..

just a thought..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

[Removed by poster at 08/05/13 13:55:25]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

30-years 2 late in, Stuart. Hall. & Jimmy. Saville's. case. 2 " string " the b**t**ds up?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"It appears some of these cases were investigated at the time and insufficient evidence was available.

It begs the question are these cases being reinvestigated just in case? Most of these claims have come to light and people named on front pages of the newspapers, treated like criminals before any guilt has been proven many decades later. How can there be more evidence now than there was then?

"

These are my thoughts too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heWolfMan
over a year ago

warwickshire


"I am finding it all strange. Unless there is proof or evidence isn't it just one word against the other especially after so long?

I think there is more going to be coming out of the woodwork, and who knows wether they will be telling the truth or just jumping on the bandwagon."

I think that they are relying on the accused to admit they have been less than honorable when faced with lots of cases which seem to be remarkably similar, yet from unconnected "victims", as in the Stuart Hall case.

I'm sure one or two of these people could stand their ground in court, and demand that the Prosecution "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty of these crimes, but when they are 80 odd years old, with the prospect of a refusal to co-operate and confess adding to any sentence imposed if found guilty, they may be advised to plead guilty straight away.

All they need to concede under questioning is that they may have been "overly pushy" or "determined" when pursuing these women and that's enough for charges to be filed, and a skilled lawyer to paint someone in court as confessing to being a predator. If there's a string of accusations, the chances are that they haven't just tried it on with an overly-sensitive woman, more that they are a serial offender. If there's no physical evidence, the CPS must weigh up whether the circumstantial evidence will be enough to proceed. Anything that defendant says when arrested could show he had the mens rea, that he KNEW he was committing an offence.

And let's face it, they KNOW what's right and wrong even though they may have considered it in the past and forgotten. These aren't illiterate idiots jumping out of a dark alley with a knife, wearing a balaclava. They know when they have used methods to intimidate and pressure women into sleeping with them, and they know that those methods are wrong. They know what that is called, they know they have committed offences, and unfortunately the reckoning has caught up with them.

I'm sure lots of people who may never have considered themselves to be bad men, or sex offenders, are now thinking back to the times they really really wanted to sleep with someone and used every trick to make it happen. The day after, well, dump her and move on to the next awestruck lady. One of the perks of fame, right?

My only misgiving is that some of these men, whilst undoubtably in the wrong and tedious scumbags, are paying the 21st century price for 20th century behaviour. I believe it was once perfectly acceptable to leer at the typists in an office and shout "Phwwoooooar!!", a la Robin Askwith, and do your best to nail every one of them (except for the one with greasy hair and thick glasses). Try drooling over a secretary (with a swanee whistle) today and see where it gets you! A tribunal, and then the job centre, most likely.

Even so, it's one thing these people being a bit of a "Big Man", trying their luck with the office girls, encountering no opposition and concluding they are just thrusting bucks playing the field and that being a "sex pest" is all OK. It's another when they are targetting vulnerable teenage girls, they know that's out of order, then as it is now.

Would a jury convict on just accusations from 40 years ago? Well, I perhaps wouldn't, because as has been pointed out (and deleted), you hear all sorts of stuff about people in the public eye, some which may be true, and some which is obviously urban legend or just bullshit.

The other 11 people on that jury might not be so careful and think "Yeah, he looks the type" and press to convict. The phrase "witch hunt" is every bit as valid now as back in Salem, or the McCarthy era. Scary times for some people! There'll always be someone to point a finger at...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"dont speculate on a public forum..

just a thought.."

Surely most thoughts are based around pure speculation concerning the issue involved

This however as you rightly point out is a public forum and anyone has the right to say what they feel is necessary at the time

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Not unless the person has been in the news as being questioned Superfan....Admin don't want names on here who people "think" may have done something.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"dont speculate on a public forum..

just a thought..

Surely most thoughts are based around pure speculation concerning the issue involved

This however as you rightly point out is a public forum and anyone has the right to say what they feel is necessary at the time "

absolutely right about speculation per se..

meant the naming of people which the poster appeared to be wanting others to do..

which is wrong on so many levels and probably legally a bit iffy also..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"Not unless the person has been in the news as being questioned Superfan....Admin don't want names on here who people "think" may have done something."

That was my point though Ruggers, speculation without fact is unfounded, most of the names that Mr ? mentioned have already become public knowledge

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Ah sorry Super...I think crossed wires.

Yes, he mentioned the ones in the news and that isn't a problem, but he was asking people to speculate who was next.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

Will an apology "in kind" be forthcoming

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

....i'm just relieved that Johnny Morris is dead....heaven forbid what he may (or may not) have got upto!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At this rate we are going to be more scared by people called Jimmy ! Than Mohamed

No offence meant by comments above, other names are available !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *scariMan
over a year ago

Taunton


"Which " celebrity " is going 2 b next? I mite b rong here? but, this woodn't hav came 2 lite about these " celebrities " IE, Max. Clifford. / Stuart. Hall. / Jimmy. Tarbuck. / Dave. Lee. Travis. 2 name afew. If it wasn't 4 the deceased, Jimmy. Saville. b-ing xposed as a " paedo...& predator "

Your thoughts? plz."

Text speak is Rubbish and lazy!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In the 70's nearly every gig I ever went to was full of young girls hanging around the stage door trying to get into the changing rooms of the bands and succeeding more often than not.

Now these would be considered victims these days but then it was just the normal thing that happened.

Are we now to expect a tidal wave of older rock stars to be dragged across the coals next?

I know that a lot of these cases are allegedly forced but in the eyes of the law it's all the same thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

££££££ springs to mind"

Spot on!!!!!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The press knew George Michael was gay years before the story broke. He played the game with them so they left him alone.

Sorry dude, but it's not just about being "gay" or coming "out of the closet" though is it. "

What I said was that there are many more celebrities that have been questioned/arrested/charged (delete as applicable) some of these may not have been named for legal reasons, some have not been named purely down to their friendly relationship with the press. They are known to "play the game" Everyone in the media knew about Michael/Barrymore/Donovan before their respective court cases (Donovan went on to win his libel case) but were left alone. some may be known to be litigious but once one outlet breaks the story it is no holds barred.

Today I was listening to details of the Liberace v daily mirror libel case. The mirror was sued over a particularly spiteful review in 1954 that inferred that Liberace was a homosexual. At that time it was still illegal. The performer went on to sue and subsequently win substantial damages. To his dying day he always denied being gay and great lengths were taken to cover up the fact that he died from aids. Three weeks after he died the mirror printed the headline "give us back the money!"

Getting back to the original point, a lot of artistes, (at the time George Michael included) often try to hide the fact they are gay/married/in a relationship as it may affect their popularity

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"Which " celebrity " is going 2 b next? I mite b rong here? but, this woodn't hav came 2 lite about these " celebrities " IE, Max. Clifford. / Stuart. Hall. / Jimmy. Tarbuck. / Dave. Lee. Travis. 2 name afew. If it wasn't 4 the deceased, Jimmy. Saville. b-ing xposed as a " paedo...& predator "

Your thoughts? plz.

Text speak is Rubbish and lazy!!"

But allowed if the man wants to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"Will an apology "in kind" be forthcoming "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ysteryboatMan
over a year ago

Brighton

I suppose that it's not impossible that the Police access private files when a man such as Max Clifford is charged, and those files might reveal other people's indiscretions that he helped them to keep private. Beyond that, I can't see how the CPS can suddenly gather enough evidence to charge anyone with offences that are claimed to have occurred 30 years ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I suppose that it's not impossible that the Police access private files when a man such as Max Clifford is charged, and those files might reveal other people's indiscretions that he helped them to keep private. Beyond that, I can't see how the CPS can suddenly gather enough evidence to charge anyone with offences that are claimed to have occurred 30 years ago."

Don't necessarily agree with that, Stuart hall was caught after an anonymous tip off to a journalist who informed the police.

There have been conspiracy theories about certain secret societies and "lizard people" repressing stories

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eal_Dick_TurpinMan
over a year ago

Exeter

Three things that spring from this thread.

1/ Liberace may well have been a poof, that doesn't mean he was fucking other guys, cf Steve Fry, and indeed apparently many of them men on here who re hetero but can't get laid.

2/ I wasn't aware that the late J Saville has ever been convicted in any court anywhere of any sexual crime... since our alleged justice system is founded on (amongst others) the concept of innocent until proven (in a court of law) guilty, that means he is innocent in law.... anything else is speculation, and the estates and relatives of the dead can sue for defamation and libel

3/ follow the fucking money, nobody is making any allegations against any celebutards who are now broke, nobody is going to accuse cheggers of anything back in the day, because he is so broke he'd turn up to the opening of an envelope.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick


"Today I was listening to details of the Liberace v daily mirror libel case. The mirror was sued over a particularly spiteful review in 1954 that inferred that Liberace was a homosexual. At that time it was still illegal. The performer went on to sue and subsequently win substantial damages. To his dying day he always denied being gay and great lengths were taken to cover up the fact that he died from aids. Three weeks after he died the mirror printed the headline "give us back the money!""

It wasn't illegal to be a homosexual.....it was the homosexual act. That changed in 1967.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ashful BazMan
over a year ago

poole dorset

I've been trying really hard to think of a good Jimmy Tarbuck joke.

But he didn't have any.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *UNCHBOXMan
over a year ago

folkestone


"Three things that spring from this thread.

1/ Liberace may well have been a poof, that doesn't mean he was fucking other guys, cf Steve Fry, and indeed apparently many of them men on here who re hetero but can't get laid.

2/ I wasn't aware that the late J Saville has ever been convicted in any court anywhere of any sexual crime... since our alleged justice system is founded on (amongst others) the concept of innocent until proven (in a court of law) guilty, that means he is innocent in law.... anything else is speculation, and the estates and relatives of the dead can sue for defamation and libel

3/ follow the fucking money, nobody is making any allegations against any celebutards who are now broke, nobody is going to accuse cheggers of anything back in the day, because he is so broke he'd turn up to the opening of an envelope."

You cannot make a claim for defamation or libel for a dead person. The laws of libel only apply to the living.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top