Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway — Page 8

jacobtsf, Thank you. That is what I have been trying to say.

And, Papa is right he isn't required to register as a sex offender.

If what I read was correct, he only got hit with the endangering the welfare of a minor because there wasn't enough evidence to say if he had sex with her or not

---

I could be wrong but I believe he "copped" a plea to reduce his sentencing and not be listed as a sex offender, and not because there wasn't enough evidence,
He admited that he had sex with her and he knew her age.

Any group that wants to raise the attention to their cause will go after this show for sure, if he is in the cast.

I wonder if this could impact the show even if he isn't cast. There could be people who are so against the entire thing that they would boycott or protest the show because the producers associated themselves with Barbour in the first place.

---

Okay, now I AM going to call you stupid after that comment.

---

"welcome to the dark side, eris. we have gummi bears."

Fun. Do you have Reese's Pieces too?

---

"yes, but if you eat them drew barrymore's pet alien will follow you home and pass out in your bathtub."

That might not be such a good idea. My younger cat will kill him.

---

grammar. it ain't just kelsey's last friggin' name.

---

My God...some people are just DOOMED.

I give up.

---

Will Barbour appear in Two Cities?
No.
Will the producers “stand by their man”?
Not in a million years.
Will they fire him?
Yep, better believe it.
Will the public ever know this?
Nope.

Here is the story:

James Barbour, the troubled convicted sex offender/sort of Broadway star, who spent two months in jail for having sex with an under aged girl, has decided to end his professional association with the multi-million dollar extravaganza, “A Tale of Two Cities” to concentrate on his personal life and rebuild his spirit. “The producers BEGGED me to stay with the show,” Barbour claimed. “They said I could not be replaced. I told them, ‘Nonsense, there are a dozen actors out there who can do it justice. Give one of them a chance.'” The actor continued, “I have made some terrible mistakes and need to deal with personal demons which will only be for the better for ALL involved with the show. I SHALL return to Broadway when the time is right and I am at peace with myself.”

Everybody wins.

The producers lose the liability of a sex offender scaring off ticket buyers while still appearing loyal to a troubled man with whom they consider family.

Barbour wins by appearring contrite and by saving face from being "fired", and in a couple of years will make a fine comeback.

The show goes on, keeping hundreds of people employed and thousands of fans entertained. EVERYBODY WINS!



Except the victim.

---

No, the real article should read:
"Producers come to senses, fire convicted sex offender.
Victim still the biggest loser."

---

True true. There are also a lot of school groups who visit NYC from elsewhere in the country. This could add to the potential complaints.

---

He is not a sex offender in the eyes of the law. Some of you need to stop labelling him as such. He was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child. There are no qualifiers for that designation (i.e., the nature of the offense isn't part of the conviction title, so without further inquiry you wouldn't know what the offense was), which is why he is required to disclose that information to potential employers. Morally, is he a sex offender? Maybe. Considering less than 100 years ago it was acceptable for a man his age to marry a girl her age I guess that depends on ones own moral compass. In todays standards, he certainly is. But since the law doesn't consider him a sex offender than no one here should, because it can bring about a lot of problems, and libelous statements could cause the site itself legal problems (since it is moderated).

That said, personally I don't think it will cause the uproar many are predicting should he stay with the show. As I said earlier, if the parents or the girl don't make a big fuss, then I don't see anyone else doing so. History shows that the organizers of such demonstrations are usually affiliated with the victim in some manner. The examples with Corpus Christi aren't entirely relevant, since religious lunatics are more ferocious with protesting. Had he forced her to have oral sex while chanting the Devil is God, then maybe we'd see something. If he were a bigger star with more media coverage we would probably see something. But I doubt we'll see much of anything. I guess it really depends on how the press covers it.

As for the show's failure if he is in it, I don't see how anyone would be able to prove it. I didn't plan on seeing it before, so I certainly don't have any plans on seeing it now, with or without Barbour. And I think some of you overestimate how many schools require this as reading. It's usually only on recommended reading lists.