14 years ago my complaint that a jury of my peers should consist entirely of celebrities was mocked but my point is illustrated by William Roache's cherished letter to a fan, printed in today's paper. It's how stars deal with fans. "Thank you for your kind comments; I hope you like the enclosed photo, xxx".

Now produced by the prosecution in Manchester as clear evidence that he was a pervert.

I'm sorry but this simply isn't fair. The whole thing stinks.

I see Roache "used his celebrity" to seduce girls. How long before rapists are accused of "using their good looks" or "using their personality" to attract members of the opposite (or same) sex? It's disgraceful, isn't it, using anything to get someone you fancy to find you attractive? Or is it simply normal human behaviour?

I've seen this fairly innocuous letter depicted in so many ways to imply much but when reading it in full it's just a pleasant note.

Love the idea of 'jury of peers' and surely that is what it means ?

I actually wanted a "jury of queers" but judges have little if any humour.

Using his celebrity - I've heard that before - Oh yes - Daily Mail :
King "exploited his celebrity" to lure the boys to his central London home where he seduced them with sexy pictures of girls, the Old Bailey was told.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-85367/K...s.html#ixzz2qZTjwJj8

The that puzzles me still is driving around asking minors to fill in a sex questionnaire by JK.

Sounds like and smells like more bullshit.

I agree, sounds implausible - but not as implausible as the evidence given against JK :
"The third time King assaulted me was, again, following a lift home from the Hop. This time it did hurt and I told him that, but he did not stop. I even asked him if he used Vaseline"

3rd time??? - can he use Vaseline?? - the Judge must have been insanely jealous - take him down

JK2006 wrote:
I actually wanted a "jury of queers" but judges have little if any humour.

Oh i don't know..

From SkyNews DLT Trial Feed
Friend of one of the alleged DLT victims "she was a big fan of the Osmonds."
Judge: "We'll overlook it this once."

Gnomo wrote:
I agree, sounds implausible - but not as implausible as the evidence given against JK :
"The third time King assaulted me was, again, following a lift home from the Hop. This time it did hurt and I told him that, but he did not stop. I even asked him if he used Vaseline"

3rd time??? - can he use Vaseline?? - the Judge must have been insanely jealous - take him down

The first 2 times were ok then. Third not as Vaseline or KY jelly was not used ? If offered me a lift home I take it, I was told to never walk home in the dark.

After JK was convicted things started to come out, he hanged around schools throwing merchandise over fences and walls, took kids for a drive during lunchtime. Anyone see a pattern here ?

And the article strangely failed to mention that I was acquitted of all these allegations. Getting found not guilty is not as good a story as getting convicted. Remember I faced two trials in the Old Bailey. In one I was convicted. In the other I was acquitted. And planned other trials were ordered abandoned by the Judge who sentenced me for any possible offences based on the first trial result. Why not, I wondered, on the second? Because Not Guilty is not such a good story as Guilty.

Media coverage is always slanted and frequently wrong.

That's why I included so many cuttings from newspapers and magazines at the time in my autobiography. It's hard to deny facts when there is published evidence (although I'm sure the "haters" and "trolls" would claim the clippings are forged!).

Amazes me how these ingorent pitch fork wielding tossers seem to think that the age of consent of 16 is the result of some kind of careful and earnest deliberation by a panel of experts.

The age of consent was set at 16 (raised from 13) in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 which also criminalized homosexuality. You know...the law that Alan Turing was castrated under, the man we just officially pardoned as a symbol of our recognition that the 1885 law was a gross stain upon humanity.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act was lobbied for by puritanical suffragettes who were effectively trying to criminalize sex outside of marriage. They actually wanted the age of consent raised to 21 but 16 was settled upon as a fairly arbitary compromise (and because girls generally began puberty at around 16 or 17 in the Victorian era). The reason why homosexuality was criminalized was for exactly the same reason as the age of consent was raised to 16 - because the proponents of the bill believed that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage was evil.

Yet bizarrely, we still subscribe to the Victorian age of consent without question, yet recognise that homosexuality is a victimless crime.