Story here.
So, yet another (British, minor) celebrity who has been accused of underage shenanigans.
Is it more that the stigma has been removed from being a victim, and thus more people are ready to come forward to ‘out’ their abusers, or has the system gone too far, and it is a press-led frenzy which desperately searches for a story where there is none?
It’s early days, but what do you think?
:eek:
I’m absolutely shocked!
Nope, still can’t believe it.
Don’t have time to read the story… but i take it it’s some celeb getting frisky with kids?
If so… why are you shocked?
that anyone would get hot with kids… or cause they are a celeb?
The seriousness and range of the allegations is worrying. All are related to a 1970s discotheque in Walton-on-Thames that convicted paedophile Jonathan King owned. Another “celebrity” was also arrested yesterday - Tam Paton, former manager of the Bay City Rollers.
Matthew Kelly is just the tip of the iceberg, if the stories are to be believed. Even The Evening Standard, hardly a tabloid scandal-sheet, is reporting:
Mith : I was shocked that he’s married with 2 kids.
With the sole exception of Graham Norton, Matthew Kelly is the campest person on British TV; the proverbial row of pink tents. So I just always assumed he was gay.
Re the allegations, who knows. The only thing we know for sure is that his reputation just got permanently tarnished, without his even being charged with anything.
I wonder if they were game for a laugh?
seriously, Its as if Popbitch have take over the world.
FWIW Kelly has lived apart from his wife for most of their marriage, and he shares a house in London with a drag artist called Dave. According to the Daily Record anyway.
He was certainly known on the gay scene down here in sunny Bournemouth.
Nobody mentioned a taste for chicken, though.
If it’s to do with the Walton-on-Thames disco, though, wouldn’t he have been fairly young himself, then? I saw the documentary on Jonathan King, and Jimmy Pursey was interviewed since he was one of the regulars (as in young boys) there. If Pursey was a youngster then, Kelly can’t have been a whole lot older, surely? Not unless he has a picture in the attic, or something.
According to the Evening standard link above, he shares his house in Chiswick with his 29-year-old archeologist daughter. Maybe she looks like a drag artist?
Matthew Kelly is 52.
Hey, everton, you’re not doubting the quality of my cite, are you? 
Think you forgot about Dale Winton.
Any idea who the Radio 1 Dj might be, anyone?
Are we even allowed to discuss this here, considering the problems with the John Leslie thing a while back?
I heard a rumour, and it’s quite a shock and surprise. To avoid litigation, I’ll just say “hirsute breakfast cereal”.
Don’t forget, too, that the ex-manager of the Bay City Rollers has also been arrested.
Mmmmm…interesting. :eek: So, “hirsute Muppet percussionist” would also describe the possible future plaintiff, allegedly.
This sounds like one of Ian Hislops ideas…if we say “allegedly” after everything, we can thus avoid being sued.
Maybe.
So, who’s the peer then? BTW, England’s really going to the dogs, isn’t it?
It went years ago, we just covered it up well.
the Tabloid scum are going to have a field day.
And with Rebekah Wade taking over at the Scum, paediatricians everywhere are going to have to go into hiding…
And Aro’s going to be writing the headlines!
Stars in their flies… brilliant!
I sure even now she has the Scum’s finest hacks tracking down “Junior Stars in their Eyes” contestants -
“Hmm, so he put his arm around you, told you that you were better that the REAL Michael Jackson …”
But back to the OP - I did wonder at the motivation of some of the victims in the King trial. They did keep going back for more when they have easily avoided him. They were around the 16 years old mark, at the time of the offenses, as I understand, so nothing would have been said if they’d been girls. I’m assuming that he wasn’t convicted of rape, of course.
I’m sort of uncomfortable with that inequality. I realise what the age of consent was and is, for homosexual acts, but I feel they should be the same for hetrosexual and homosexual acts.
That was always King’s defence at the trial, and why he claims not to be a paedophile even now. He was convicted of offences against 14- and 15-year-olds however.
They are now of course (in case anyone’s in doubt).
I guess that’s what drawing boundaries does - in some countries, he’d probably be ok. On the other hand, wherever they’re drawn, some people will prefer to be on the wrong side of them.
Related to the OP - does anyone think that homosexual abuse of boys is seen as worse than that of girls? I’m talking teens, rather than young children.
For example, Bill Wyman’s relationship with Mandy Smith (which started when she was 13, IIRC) seems to have been tolerated, to some extent. He’s the subject of jokes about his prediliction, but hasn’t been forced into hiding, let alone prosecuted. If the relationship had come to light now, would the reaction have been different? Or is it ok 'cos he married her once she was old enough?
(Mini Doris is 13. Anyone trying any mucky stuff with her risks having his tackle removed with a cheese grater and Scotch Bonnet chilis stuck up his arse)