The REAL Reason Barbour Left ROCKY HORROR- Page 3

[crewdude]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:31pm

AC there was controversy was he was in TOTC.
Phyllis - he was continued to be punished because as an actor he needs to go to where the job is. He was unable to leave the state for a period of time as part of his parole. It limited his chances of employment leaving him with shows at Sardi's.

Were you at Jayne Eyre when the incident occurred? Did you see the woman on the day of the incident? Trust me, no one thought she was anything less than 20. She was the one that sought him out. She was the one that waited until she was urged by her grandmother as she prepared for college graduation just before the statute of limitations ran out to press charges. The whole thing reeked of opportunism. I have empathy for an person that was an actual victim of rape. However, this is yet another example of a case where the 'victim' casts a shadow over other real victims.

It's also another example of where laws on paper do not reflect the reality of the world that actors work in. An actor needs to go where a job is offered on a particular show at a particular theatre.

To me, the saddest thing in the whole story was where it sad that The Globe is most famous for The Grinch. The Grinch? Wow! That's just sad.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:32pm

I'm going to take a more extreme stance: why shouldn't she profit from it? How does it make her a "bad" rape victim who gives a bad name to the others? Why does our society feel it can dictate how rape victims should or shouldn't act? Barbour broke the law and he knew it. He knew, or if he didn't he should have known, that this could be a possible result of what he did. She is entitled to react however she wants to and if she can benefit from a terrible event, I say go for it.

Also, rape victims settle for money all of the time. It doesn't minimize what happened to them.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 12:32 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 12:37pm

Phyllis - he was continued to be punished because as an actor he needs to go to where the job is. He was unable to leave the state for a period of time as part of his parole. It limited his chances of employment leaving him with shows at Sardi's

So, wait - even though he took a plea, is not a felon and doesn't have to reigster as a sex offender, HE got the short end of the stick. Really?

As for the fame-whore girl, I haven't even seen her name printed in ONE article yet. Can someone point me in the direction of all this profiteering she is alleged to be doing? I'll believe everyone who says how horrible she is - I just want to see just a wee bit of proof.

Trust me, no one thought she was anything less than 20.

I guess if I were to get caught with someone who turned out to be 15 and I really didn't know they were 15, then I wouldn't admit that I knew they were 15. Are you saying that he was lying about knowing her real age? Why would he do that?






Another old thread (lots of victim blaming here, too) Updated On: 8/19/11 at 12:37 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 2:34pm

I'm totally with Phyllis on this.
How did she profit from this?
Her name and face were never used.
Someone said they don't blame her, then said what she did was disgusting. What did she do? Turn in a preditor? Did she get jobs because she's that kid Barbour did?

And from what I have heard, this was not an "isolated" incident.

And Barbour may have apoligised for the public, but he still maintains that he was set up (3 times) and has convinced many of his story.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 3:14pm

Yeah, all she's gotten out of reporting are people calling her a lying, opportunistic Lolita.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:05pm

It's also another example of where laws on paper do not reflect the reality of the world that actors work in. An actor needs to go where a job is offered on a particular show at a particular theatre.

What are the other examples of these laws? And what's your implication - that the law is designed to give actors the shaft?

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:10pm

Yeah, all she's gotten out of reporting are people calling her a lying, opportunistic Lolita.

The actress in question has worked steadily in theatre and television since 2006--the year she first brought charges against Barbour. And here in New York--in the theatre world--it's well-known who she is, even if it never made many of the papers.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 04:10 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:21pm

So you are alleging that she only works because of these allegations (which Barbour says are true)? And if it's apparently his God-given right to work in the theatre, why isn't it hers?

I ask these questions not to be an a-hole, but because I find the sentiments being expressed about the girl - who was 15 years old when she blew James Barbour, who was then 35 - really astound me.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:28pm

For what it's worth, all I've ever said on the matter was that I found it interesting and possibly opportunistic that the girl waited until she was 21, starting her career, and the statute was about to run out before filing charges. Do I wonder if she was maybe a more willing participant in the act? I do, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Barbour should have known better. And do I find it curious that the girl got her first major job (understudying a leading role in a Broadway show) weeks after she first filed charges? It's definitely crossed my mind.

She has the right to pursue a career in any industry she chooses. And so does he.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 04:28 PM

[bk]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:31pm

"And from what I have heard, this was not an "isolated" incident."

Oh, from what you've heard. So, beyond his plea bargain and what he admitted to and served the time he was asked to serve, you are now convicting him of other incidents that you've "heard" he committed. It's fine to have an opinion on the FACTS as they are known, but it is not fine to hurl allegations for which you a) have no proof, b) "heard" from someone (please), and c) have no personal knowledge of. Really, don't expect anyone anywhere to take anything you have to say on this matter seriously because what you're doing here is more than a little specious. It's fine to think he's a scum for the one incident he was charged with - that is your right and you can certainly spout off about it as much as you like (and you have) - but leave gossip and rumor out of it.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:35pm

Doesn't it seem more likely that the statute-of-limitations part was more of an influnce than the starting-a-career part, even if they coincided?

And I still don't get announcing "I was molested by a Broadway star" as a career launching pad.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:41pm

It's fine to think he's a scum for the one incident he was charged with - that is your right and you can certainly spout off about it as much as you like (and you have) - but leave gossip and rumor out of it.

Perhaps this should be applied to the girl, as well as to James Barbour.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:51pm

Every story about how this 15 year old (and her grandmother?)trapped this poor unknowing 35 year old man is gossip and rumor, I choose to believe what I was told, you can chide me all you want, I'm not convicting him of anything.
And read this whole thread, I am not the only one who has heard there were other girls.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 4:53pm

Yes...there are many roads to stardom. But coming forward with charges that are open you up to the kind of things said about her here surely must be the strangest path I've ever encountered. It makes no sense to me...unless there's some sort of conspiracy to bring down James Barbour amongst the...what?...Scientology-haters that run this business?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:07pm

It's not all that far-fetched, guys.

Heck, I got famous when Kevin Spacey bought me a drink.

Excuse me.

"Bought me a drink."

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:09pm

Lot of nonsense in this thread. If anyone posting in this thread is being paid by Barbour to protect his interests they had better disclose it.

First, the serving of a criminal sentence does not constitute any kind of rehabilitation. It's just serving time. Rehabilitation is something else entirely, and probably seldom accomplished with this type of crime.

Crimes of both rape and child molestation are noted for their high recidivist (repeat offender) rates.

Let's take a look at some facts. Excerpts from a NY Times article regarding Barbour's criminal act in question:

"Mr. Barbour’s lawyer...said his client accepted the deal because if a jury had convicted him of the original felony sex charges against him he would have been forced to register as a sex offender, “which basically would have ended his career.”

His lawyer said that the prosecutor’s agreement to a misdemeanor plea showed the weaknesses of its case. But Mr. Barbour had to agree to a lengthy series of conditions of probation that are very similar to those that apply to convicted sex offenders.

While he is on probation, he must inform the manager, producer or assistant director of any theatrical, film or television project he works in that he has been convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, “having engaged in oral sexual conduct and sexual contact with a 15-year-old child.”

And he has to get permission from the court or his probation officer to participate in shows employing child actors or to give backstage tours to children.

He must also attend sex-offender treatment and cannot visit playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks, school grounds or Internet chat rooms frequented by children without permission from his probation officer.

In a signed statement to the police in April 2006, Mr. Barbour said that he was just acting as a mentor to the girl, that he had done no more than touch her knees and kiss her and that he thought that she was 16.

But in court on Thursday when asked by Justice Scherer, “Were you aware of her exact age?” Mr. Barbour replied, “Yes.”

“What was that age?” Justice Scherer pressed.

“Fifteen,” he replied.

At least one Broadway veteran said on Thursday that Mr. Barbour, who played the Beast in “Beauty and the Beast” for about one year, might find himself less marketable for family-friendly shows for awhile.""
NY Times re Barbour Guilty Plea

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:15pm

This all could have been avoided if Barbour's lawyers were allowed to do this...

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:21pm

Lot of nonsense in this thread. If anyone posting in this thread is being paid by Barbour to protect his interests they had better disclose it.

And you lose any credibility you might have had with me (which, I'll say, is very little considering some other posts you've made) before you even start.

First, the serving of a criminal sentence does not constitute any kind of rehabilitation. It's just serving time. Rehabilitation is something else entirely, and probably seldom accomplished with this type of crime.

It would take very little effort to find that the terms of Barbour's probation required him to attend an outpatient sex-offender treatment program in addition to serving jail time disclosing his status as a sex-offender to employers and colleagues.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:25pm

Nope.

The lawyer was a jackass to suggest that and aside from the penalties of violating the law, would probably opened himself up to ethics charges and potential disbarment and he knew it, so he was just shouting for theatrics, which obviously the court didn't fall for.

Since he chose NOT to go to trial and ADMITTED he knew her age and thus that he LIED in a SIGNED STATEMENT to police, his credibility is shot and no one has any right to complain about the child victim. If he was innocent, he could have chosen to prove it at trial. BARBOUR made the CHOICE to admit GUILT.

His name is MUD and he knows it. He's lucky he got someone to marry him. He's lucky when he finds work. He is no oppressed victim; he was a sexual predator to a child.

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:25pm

I don't care much about Barbour personally - yes I am a "scientology-hater" - but the way the Old Globe caved in to this right wing publicity seeking freak is disgusting.

And why the silence from his fellow cast members? Is it a question of speak up and you'll never work here again? The Old Globe looks pitiful.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:25pm

K

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:27pm

And why the silence from his fellow cast members? Is it a question of speak up and you'll never work here again?

They are probably the victims of the same cabal who got [REDACTED] her first understudy gig on Broadway.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:30pm

Why are you defending him, AC126748?

Are you paid to do it?

Are you a misogynist who hates women and doesn't care about female victims?

If Barbour admitted his own guilt, why don't you? Do you think the lives and safety of children is worthless and of no interest to you? That's pretty sick.

Why should I care what you think of me when you are defending an admitted criminal?

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:33pm

Does it matter? Updated On: 8/19/11 at 05:33 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/19/11 at 5:34pm

1. No.
2. No. As I've posted clearly on this thread, I find what Barbour did wrong and misguided, but I also believe he has served his time and that's where it ends for me.
3. I have nothing to admit or be guilty of. My opinions are my opinions.
4. You can think of me whatever you wish.

Posts like that are why almost no one on this board take you seriously. Maybe you'll have another meltdown here. Those are always entertaining.

Updated On: 8/19/11 at 05:34 PM