The puppeteer who performs as Elmo on Sesame Street has been accused of having an underage relationship with a teenage boy.

Kevin Clash is taking leave of absence from the popular children's show following allegations that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old boy.

The non-profit organisation behind the show, Sesame Workshop, said 52-year-old Clash denies the claims, which were first made in June by the alleged partner, who by then was 23.

news.sky.com/story/1010432/elmo-star-kev...used-of-underage-sex

again ... why the wait, unless for blackmail / compensation etc etc ?

Why wait ITK? The £6m Dollar question. Each has their own reasons but to simply ask says more about you I'm afraid.

note the careful use of language in all reports..."underaged".

they can;t say 'child' or 'pedophile' because the claimant says he was 16 - the legal age in the UK.

you could do something with a teen across the Channel and it would be legal- in the UK it could be 'child abuse'.

Cross a border and you become a pedophile.

Angel wrote:
Why wait ITK? The £6m Dollar question.

Is that how much compo they are expecting now they have - deliberately - allowed all possible forensic evidence to disappear ?

In The Know wrote:
Angel wrote:
Why wait ITK? The £6m Dollar question.

Is that how much compo they are expecting now they have - deliberately - allowed all possible forensic evidence to disappear ?

Best comeback I've ever read in a forum.

Angel wrote:
Why wait ITK? The £6m Dollar question. Each has their own reasons but to simply ask says more about you I'm afraid.

Still don't get what we're here for Angel?
I've pulled ITK many times on here,but this time he's spot on with his analysis

So you're now all assuming that those who cannot bring themselves for whatever reason, admit they were abused at the time it happened are all out for compensation? Say it ain't so...

It ain't so. Some speak the truth, some have faulty memories, some are deluded, some want attention and sympathy, some love being victims, some want compensation cash, some want media fees - like everything in life, shades of gray.

Angel wrote:
So you're now all assuming that those who cannot bring themselves for whatever reason, admit they were abused at the time it happened are all out for compensation? Say it ain't so...

What other logical reason - other than joining the stampede once they hear the magic words "lawyers" / "compo" - can you suggest, angel ?

If you are burgled are you going to wait 5, 10 years before reporting it?
Same with a car accident?
What about if someone steals your purse / wallet / mobile?

Why is this type of case any different?
They all have evidence to collect, and any delay will damage that possibility.

What possible reason can there be for the delay?

There are many ITK, as I've listed above; those defending delayed claims would say guilt, shame, lack of feeling they would be believed... very few might suggest some people found themselves enjoying the experience but felt they shouldn't...

JK2006 wrote:
There are many ITK, as I've listed above; those defending delayed claims would say guilt, shame, lack of feeling they would be believed.....

I can understand why someone may NEVER want to talk about it, JK, through shame etc, but "feeling they may not be believed"? If they were not going to be believed 40 years ago - why should they be believed today?

This is the easiest allegation in the world to make (esp historically, when you can be "fuzzy" with dates / places etc .... "I cant remember")

Surely we should expect consistency, and (if we are to believe them) clear logical reasons why they have delayed (esp when such delay has almost certainly put the accused at a disadvantage).

I know someone who was accused, and the complainant contacted the police immediately. Medical examination took place less than 3 hours after the alleged incident (the optimum time).

The defence's medical expert concluded that no assault had taken place at all - and when pressed (and re-called) the police medical doctor (reluctantly) agreed.

What if the complainant had waited a few years before complaining?

Oh I agree with you ITK; it's incredibly unfair legally and really cannot be justified but I do understand why Michael Howard enabled historical allegations - small children in care homes abused - physically, mentally or sexually - feel helpless and abusers should be brought to justice. The trouble is - he didn't think it through, it enabled all kinds of injustices (including mine) and has created a dreadful industry.

I just don't buy into the theory that it's always greed or cash that provokes lies or exaggeration. There can be many different reasons.

We're also being asked to believed that these "victims" displayed no signs of trauma at the time of any alleged offence. If someone is raped, do they compose themselves and crack up 40 years later or do they start screaming "rape" or "help" and go immediately to the police?

The idea that Jimmy Savile managed to abuse 450 people and NONE of them displayed any signs of distress at the time that might have alerted BBC staff to his alleged abuse is unbelievable.

There is also the problem of people historically revising consent to have sex into abuse once, as was very well pointed out earlier by a poster whose name I forget, compensation might be available and no forensic evidence is available to prove or disprove any allegations against the dead.

The Astrological Twin wrote:
The idea that Jimmy Savile managed to abuse 450 people and NONE of them displayed any signs of distress at the time that might have alerted BBC staff to his alleged abuse is unbelievable.

So true, AT