Talk:Arthur Mullard

Top of the Pops appearance
There seems to be a long-running myth that Mullard and Baker's appearance led to a drop in sales for their single. In fact, if you look at the chart run here you can see that since they appeared on the 7 September 1978 edition, the single actually rose from No.50 to No.22. It was the biggest sales increase the single saw. Yes, the appearance was a disaster, but it did anything but cause a sales drop.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In what way please was a jovial appearance, full of self-mockery, leading to many more sales of the single, "A disaster", please ? Heath St John (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

guest
He appeared as himself on "Mind Your Language," season 3, episode 7.211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Abuse allegations
Are there any other- more reliable- sources for the allegations of abuse made in the source provided? At Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, the Daily Mirror- of which the Sunday Mirror is, of course, a branch- is stated: 'In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims.' The claims included in this article are, I should say, fairly 'sensational', and so one wonders about whether or not, unless any other published sources deal with the subject, they ought to be quite so unequivocally stated as is presently the case. The only sources I could find online refer to the same Sunday Mirror article, or are forums discussing Arthur Mullard where conversation naturally enough turns to the fact that his daughter allegedly made the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.117.251 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

At any rate, far too much emphasis was given in the article to what is essentially one source; particularly given the lack of support for the statements, mentioning them in three different places in the article is definitely disproportionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.117.251 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Doing a quick google search, these allegations do appear to have been widely reported and widely believed, but I will try to clarify this given time. PatGallacher (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Has there now please been enough "Time" ? Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that a This Is Your Life special was cancelled over the claims and that nobody from his family or who knew him has ever been moved to counter them suggests to me they absolutely belong on this page. Humbledaisy (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is conviction by gossip. I can quite see why the BBC cancelled the 'This is Your Life' programme. Given its hypocritical-willingness to profit by employing convicted paedophiles, maintaining the public stance of offering a quiet rebuke to vent its unproved disgust to a public containing thousands of condemners committing the same practices themselves, (and gloating over the caught, in their newspapers), was better calculated to keep them still broadcasting than by declaring their belief in the greater value of proof. There is also the rebuke of dignified silence, easily deliberately misinterpreted as confeddion, by those too-eager to feast on others' unproved sins. If accusations so gross are made of you that the contempt of silence is the only calm response that's worthwhile, thats not a confession. Heath St John (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Mullard wasn't silent about the allegations because he was dead by the time they were made. I don't think including notable, widely-reported allegations in the article is tantamount to conviction by gossip. I think we'd be biased not to include them. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add that I wasn't refering to the silence beyond the grave, but to the silence of which you previously wrote : ie, "...from his family, or [from those] who knew him". Interpretations of silence, even if proved true, are still constructions before proof is shown. They may, they might not be true; but if proved to be false, what plans do his, do anybody's, public accusers think should be suitable compensation ? Indeed, how are we to know that a mind disposed to going to law shan't stray to this conversation and be encouraged to demonstrate the truth of that in a libel case ? Thanks for the exchanges. Heath St John (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that the dead can't sue for libel. PatGallacher (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to learn, but I thought relatives could sue for libel; defamation, perhaps ? I don't know if they can. But it seems to me a great shame that the possible absence of legal repercussions by any surviving member of their possibly defamed, deceased relative, is more of an inducement to defame someone without proof, than absence of proof is an encouragement to respect and caution. Anyway, over to others. Heath St John (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing that a man who had a long career as an entertainer and was a household name has to have nearly a third of his wikipedia entry dedicated to vile claims that have never been substantiated and never will be. Is this what wikipedia has become? A megaphone for unproven claims that destroy someones reputation after their death? I came her to learn about Arthur Mullard's career as an entertainer, not read paragraphs of disgusting claims made against a man unable to defend himself and who had no accusations made against him during his 85 years on this planet and 50 years in show business. There is something seriously morally wrong with wikipedia and society. 2603:8001:B840:8B82:AC24:9FA0:4159:C0A9 (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to expand the article with sources about his career, you absolutely can. The allegations were made by his own family. They were certainly taken seriously by the This Is Your Life team. They are surely a major part of Mullard's history and image and thus belong here.Humbledaisy (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, PART of "his own family"- but it's worth observing that per his younger son, who only had good things to say about him, there was a big falling-out between Mullard and the daughter over Mullard's fortune, following which he decided to leave the majority to charity (as was the case as the article shows, with only very little left to his children). The elder brother had a major argument with the father sufficient to induce him to leave home earlier in life. So, no love lost there it would seem. Whatever the truth of the matter, which will never be known, it cannot be denied that from another perspective- i.e. that supported by the younger brother per the cited sources- the two other siblings had good grounds (even if only in their own minds) to take revenge on the father who denied them a bigger share of his considerable estate. If they never got on with him anyway, why not claim victimhood and seek sympathy? There are sick people out there- not only child abusers, but those with warped minds who will stop at nothing to "win". The accounts provided are inconclusive, and as the article now does, the only thing to do is to present the opposing claims. Looking at it another way: did the daughter, with no legitimate grudge against him, not nurse her father in his final days in hopes of financial reward, and, not receiving it, decided to stick the knife in to the dead man's reputation in revenge at her lost dreams of fortune? Was she not encouraged in this by her elder brother, who long loathed the father with whom he had butted heads and from whose house he had been long absent? Who can say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.237.62 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)