Talk:Michael Barrymore

Celebrity Big Brother

Surely we can't allow things like this is our articles:

"Barrymore however, has gained much popularity in his recent appearance in 'Celebrity Big Brother'. However, whether this is the signalling of his big comeback remains to be seen. Tabloid newspapers were responsible for ruining his career in 2001 and have recently been tearing him apart during this stint."

How many normal people end up with a dead person in their swimming pool with anal injuries and then get away with denying any involvement in it? All press speculation on Barrymore is legitimate. Also Barrymore also confessed to a relative of George Michael that he was in fact involved. This "celebrity" has unresolved issues the main one is a MURDER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.87.61 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously someone expressing their personal opinion I would move to change it aleast to a more netural tone Grandwazir 14:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The nature of Barrymore attracts editors who don't fully understand our policies. Merciless editing of unencyclopedic material is strongly encouraged in a case l;ike this so go for it. IMO your perceptions are correct and I advise bold and incisive editing, SqueakBox 14:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

10 minutes of merciless editing later :-), and I have finished rewritting parts of the article to a higher standard although I am not sure about the bit I wrote regarding the bullying in the house. Although Miss Marsh does call him a horrible man and I have attributted it as such would including the actual quote be considered POV? Grandwazir 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sun

There are WAY too many quotes from The Sun newspaper in this article. Too many to make it credible. As anybody with an IQ above room temperature will know The Sun is a rancid scandal sheet and is one of the least reliable sources in the British media. However, non-UK readers of this article may not be as aware of The Sun's dubious reputation. In the interests of preserving any kind of integrity for this article, can we please avoid quoting The Sun.

This article requires a rewrite I will try and do it today. BlueKangaroo 09:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, SqueakBox 13:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me.

This BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3579653.stm - says that Barrymore was actually sued for £100,000 (not that Terry Lubbock merely intended to sue him) - any other details on the outcome of this?

That story is an announcement of intent, not a report of an event. Terry Lubbock announced to the press that he was SEEKING to sue Barrymore for £100,000, for neglect of 'care of duty'. But there seems to be have been no development on this, perhaps due to the complications of Barrymore living in New Zealand at the time. The moment Barrymore was back in the UK (for Celeb Big Brother 2006), Lubbock started up his legal campaign once more, but this time in the form of a private prosecution comprising the pressing of six charges relating to the incident. So I guess the £100,000 suit has been replaced by this. --highgater 15:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Do read the Mark Simpson interview[1], it's fascinating stuff. --highgater 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

very good article - andrew roberts

Name

Is Michael Barrymore merely a stage name, or has he actually changed his name to it? Proteus (Talk) 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Michael Barrymore is a criminal mastermind. With intend to murder all of Europe and send them to their watery graves."

Ummmm? Can someone fix that?

Death of Stuart paragraph

Barrymore ran off and phoned his agent before phoning an ambulance (in fact did he subsequently call one?) That was the key part of his downfall? Compare the Art Malik case etc and watch the Martin Bashir interview where Barrymore tried to justify his actions - someone found dead in the swimming pool of a celebrity doesn't automatically end the career of that celebrity. Surely the key point in his downfall was Barrymore's responses to Lubbock being found dead in the pool - once those responses were made public (compared to say Art Malik's response to the person dead in his pool). Barrymore ran off from the scene (his own house) and phoned his agent not an ambulance - surely it was that which finished him in the eyes of the public even before his reticence at the inquest etc?

Barrymore's explanation for the anal injuries (caused by a thermometer at the hospital etc) has always been entirely speculative, highly unlikely, and self serving? Gay/bisexual man attends drug and alcohol theme party including other gay/bisexual men and ends up with a badly damaged anus. Barrymore's claim that instead a nurse later did it with a thermometer when taking the temperature of Lubbock's body etc needs to be stated as a utterly ridiculous proposition given the alternative and far more likely scenario? (Many sources on this issue seem to equate the anal damage with a lack of consent by Lubbock - which might not be the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(Updated - having watched the Channel 4 documentary from February 2020 I am now satisfied that Stuart Lubbock was neither gay nor bisexual - though such a negative can't be proved of course)

Is it just me or just this look like it has been lifted from somewhere, I am sure I read it when I was researching this article. Grandwazir 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my paragraph then no - I was just adding what I consider common knowledge.

If you think there has been a copyvio my advice is to remove it, SqueakBox 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Contributors are reminded that only the basic facts of the Lubbock case relating to Michael Barrymore's life and career (ie those that are usually mentioned in non-tabloid news stories on Barrymore) need be mentioned in this article. In-depth reports, blow-by-blow legal proceedings, theories, controversies, opinions, investigations, police inquiries and statements by the Lubbock family really belong in the separate Stuart Lubbock article, not here. The January 2006 Bennett and Lubbock Private Prosecution, for instance, is only worth the briefest of mentions until it results in Barrymore actually answering questions in court, at the very least. This article is about what Barrymore is doing, not what Anthony Bennett or Tony Lubbock are doing. --highgater 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Lubbock was Sexually assaulted, this statement is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R4h4al (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote - In the days after Stuart's death, a post-mortem was carried out. But the four pathologists who conducted inquiries could not agree on a definitive cause of death, leading the coroner recording an 'unascertainable' open verdict after a five-day inquest. Each of the experts found horrific internal injuries and damage to the anus, consistent with rape or a serious sexual assault, with one stating they could have been caused by a hard, fist-sized object being forced into the victim. Professor Jack Crane went further, saying the injuries "were indicative of a serious sexual assault".

Source - www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/michael-barrymore-pool-victim-stuart-21428173

(This is a very poor Wikipedia page where even the basics are disputed - the Channel 4 show from February 2020 was an absolute open goal when challenging all the rubbish put forward. I think a higher up at Wikipedia needs to be brought in to examine the Stuart Lubbock section to restore credibility to the brand)

This is from The Guardian, it should be acceptable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note To User:Readallaboutit

To 'Readallaboutit'. Please can you refrain from adding lines about the latest press quotes by Terry Lubbock or Anthony Bennett to this Michael Barrymore article? Add them to their own biogs: create a Terry Lubbock article if you must. The MB article is about what MB does, not others do. I respectfully note from your contrib history that you have a personal interest in Anthony Bennett, due to his UKIP / Veritas past. Fair enough, but that's not relevant to a Wiki article about Michael Barrymore's life and career. Thanks! --highgater 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 hospital inquiry

I've edited the article to include details on the hospital inquiry launched in January 2003. I think it's important enough to include in the article, particularly in the interests of balance. However, it does need tidying up with the appropriate links put in.--highgater 07:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it me or does this article need some serious cleaning up? This is meant to be about Barrymore, not a detailed report of everything concerning the death of someone who was at one of his parties. A slow trickle of details on this has been being inserted, skeweing the focus severely. Barbara Osgood 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out several items which just seem inserted to paint as negative a portrait of Barrymore as possible. They are arguably relevant, true, but their slipshod insertion and formatting indicates little interest in integrating them properly into a formatted article, just having them visible. This page seems to be being used to catalogue everything negative that's dogged Barrymore. Barbara Osgood 23:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw you removed my links to the BBC News coverage of the hospital inquiry, with the reason "someone appears to have a vendetta against Barrymore - this article is not a record of every negative event or allegation in Barrymore's life.". On the contrary, if anything I have a raging erection right now! The 2003 enquiry is Barrymore's most significant attempt to close the case with his name cleared. I was trying to redress the Lubbock content balance in Barrymore's favour. Still, I agree that the page should have absolute minimum Lubbock content regardless, with the details of the case and subsequent investigations moved to the separate Stuart Lubbock page. There is more to Barrymore's life than that one incident. --highgater 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

apologies, I must have got a bit over-zealous there! There was just too much here on Lubbock and every single aspect of court action every taken against Barrymore Barbara Osgood 13:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the need to cut down the Lubbock content whether pro or anti-Barrymore regardless. Fuller details really belong in the Stuart Lubbock article - that's what it's there for. I've therefore edited the paragraph in the Barrymore article so it contains the very basic facts of the Lubbock incident relating to the entertainer's life. --highgater 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Daily Mirror link

Someone has added a link to a Daily Mirror article in the Links section of the Wiki entry, though there seems to be no reason for adding this and it doesn't benefit the Wiki entry in any way. There are already many references to news articles (a place better suited to external news articles) that accompany valuable text contributions to the entry so if the poster would like to imrpove the article by writing some good content and use this link as a reference then that would be great, otherwise there seems little point in just linking to news articles without reason for doing so. There are literally hundreds of articles about Michael Barrymore all over the web and we'd end up with a long unhelpful list if people just added the ones they come across to the external links section.

• Daily Mirror Sue Carroll Article

This page is basically a diary!

All it says is Barrymore did this 1st Feb

On the 2nd of Feb somebody else did something else

This man, like him or loathe him, has had a varied career - this report just concentrates on one major (albeit tragic) matter and is not really a valid encyclopaedic entry!

There, I've said my piece now.

Cleanup

Woah...this article needs major cleanup! I tried adding {{cleanup|July 2006}} but on a PDA the size of the article is too great to save the edit. Please can someone add it for me. Be bold and all, but I haven't got time at the moment - plus the size limit anyway. Cheers.

— Gary Kirk | ^talk! 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

His father was a serial killer????? I think we should require a source for that

14th June 2007 arrest?

The article claims that Barrymore has been arrested along with two other men citing a link to a news article on the BBC. However as of writing the bbc article states that Essex police have refused to say if Barrymore has been arrested. Deckchair 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC) http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1270525,00.html 81.174.140.46 10:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is reasonable to assume that he has indeed been arrested, since it is mentioned in the Times and on Sky news, both reputable sources? RJE42 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is mentioned by (and linked to) a reputable source then i would say yes. My objection was the statement that he had been arrested was backed up by a link to a source that at the time did not verify that he had been arrested. Deckchair 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is still no official confirmation that he has been arrested. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to wait. It would also be okay to say that three men have been arrested in connection with the death of Stuart Lubbock, that they have not been named by the Essex Police but that all reputable news outlets are reporting that Mr Barrymore has been arrested. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is OK to say it is thought to be Barrymore, but not to say definitively that it is based on what has been said by official sources up to ths point. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This link says he's been arrested. Corvus cornix 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It speculated that he has been arrested. The official police line in the article is that three men have been arrested. The police have not formally identified Barrymore yet, and until they do you can't say he's been arrested.

Although it's moot now, please tell me where it says that this is speculation. It says, "Barrymore arrested". Corvus cornix 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrymore's solicitor has now confirmed he is in custody. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims

I have listed this article at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Although there are lots of references, each of the allegations should be specifically sourced, or removed. For instance, the information about the two men initially arrested in the murder. Where is that information sourced? Corvus cornix 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual predator

"The recent newspaper article in the Daily Mirror accounts Barrymore forcing himself, money and drugs onto a 17 year old homosexual male. This is not related in the article to what happened in the Stuart Lubbock affair. Barrymore is clearly a sexual predator."

I think you will find if you look at the Daily Mirror article, it's an excuse to show what is essentially a photo of Barrymore in a gay club, in which there happened to also be a 17yr old boy on E pill. Is this really encyclopaedia content? Certainly not grounds to call him "clearly a sexual predator". Gay hater! Michaeldrayson 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly, that's a bizarre ad hominem attack, secondly, having just read the article [2], I've got to say I completely disagree your reading of the article.

Yes, there's a picture of Barrymore, but it's quite small compared to the sheer amount of text, and there's no indication that the picture is from a gay club or there's a 17 year old on an E there. but it's actually a pretty serious accusation, and one that is quite encylcopaedic. The story tells about someone who's concerned after seeing Barrymore attempting to force himself and drugs on a young boy, and, to be frank, with the Lubbock affair, does paint a disturbing picture of Barrymore. If it's true, I'd find it hard to argue he's a sexual predator. Although that shouldn't be said in the article just now, as it's not 100% reliable, but the coverage is worth covering.

Calling the editor a "Gay hater" is completely out of line, and unjustified. I've got to say, that it is just generally worrying if one of the first british family entertainers who came ouf as gay does turn out to be a sexual predator, as it's a worrying message/image for the public. Disliking Barrymore's actions and believing him to be a sexual predator doesn't make anyone a gay hater. Unless you identify "Gay" as "Someone who attempts to force drugs on 17 year olds so they can have sex with them". J•A•K 12:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes in some ways but as boy not in the picture and barrymore not supping on an E or killing lubbock hard it a leap to go and title section "SEXUAL PREDATOR"

it should perhaps go "FAMILY ENTERTAINER"? Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

oh and no I don't hate gays Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

do you think that I hate gays? I don't associate them with drug forcing or recall any sex with the teenager in the article?? Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never had a drug force by a gay Michaeldrayson 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where do you get the idea I accused you of hating gays? I just said "Disliking Barrymore's actions and believing him to be a sexual predator doesn't make anyone a gay hater. Unless you identify "Gay" as "Someone who attempts to force drugs on 17 year olds so they can have sex with them". " I wasn't meaning to imply all gays are people who attempt to force drugs on 17 year olds, just that a national newspaper publishing a story accusing someone of this is perfectly encyclopaedic. I also am slightly confused by your objection to someone titling a section on the talk page "sexual predator". Yes, there shouldn't be a section on the main page of that, but it's a valid thing for discussion. And don't go calling people gay haters. Be civil J•A•K 18:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Be civil! He's calling him a SEXUAL PREDATOR! Does that mean he's a Sexual Pre-Dater? As in he sexes people before he dates them? Or that he PREYS on people like a bird of prey, an eagle or an owl, perhaps, but in a sex way?

Fair enough, the daily mirror said that, but they say a lot of things. Do you remember when the Sun accused Elton John of cutting the voice boxes out of his dogs? And they didn't even have the right sort of dog in the article, let alone the missing voice box!

"Barrymore is clearly a sexual predator" seems a fairly strong statement to make. Clearly? Based on a dubious artickle in the Daily Mirror? That's a bit like saying "Lubbock clearly died with an apple up his ass forced there by lustful and predatory Michael Barrymore", no? Michaeldrayson 14:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a care for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the Mail article looks on the verge of libel and we would need better sources to include anything on the incident here. --Salix alba (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you Salix Alba! This is what I mean. Enough of these calling me "THE PIG MAN" McGeddon! Just because Michael Barrymore has not taken any legal action against the mirror does not mean that the article is libellious. I propose that the statement that Barrymore did the e-pill forcing and made other trouble in the gay club is a dubious one. However it does have a citation so we can't say . I learn. Michaeldrayson 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Name the wrong way round, surely

"Michael Ciaran Parker (born 4 May 1952) is an English comedian better known by his stage name Michael Barrymore."

Michael Parker was never an English comedian. Michael Barrymore (an English comedian? - very funny but a 'comedian'?) might have been born Michael Parker but he's not 'better known...'he is Michael Barrymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.65.28 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If he hasn't legally changed his name, he is still actually Parker; Barrymore is his stage name. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So obviously no relation to Drew Barrymore if it's only a stage name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.20.238 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

He's not related to the American Barrymore family. His reason for using the surname is that he wanted a showbiz name, rather that his own ordinary surname. Jim Michael (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a tabloid

Just a reminder that we do not aspire to the same levels of sleaze as papers like The Sun. We need to present a well-balanced summary of the guy's life, not shying away from reporting controversy where it can be reliably sourced, but not dwelling on every tabloid allegation either. We are an encyclopedia; we do not make judgements on someone's character or their guilt, we report the reliably sourced facts in a proportionate way. WP:BLP is worth a look too; we absolutely do not publish unreferenced negative info about living people. --John (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Who else publishes it? There are no citizen journalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.4.239 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The red-top papers have done many stories on him. They are very interested in a prime-time family entertainer who was found to be an unstable homosexual alcoholic who married a woman who later divorced him, stated how bad his behaviour was and later died, and who also had a man found dead in his swimming pool. The more upmarket media have not covered his life anywhere near as much; hence finding stories about him in The Sun is much easier than finding them in The Telegraph. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested for inclusion

Exclusive: We reveal Susan Boyle's first TV talent show audition - for Michael Barrymore

Susan Boyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodawi (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

The Lubbock section is as big as the rest of the article put together. I've already removed two The Sun sourced paragraphs (as a muckraking tabloid, The Sun in no way meets WP:RS) and one dubious Daily Mail article (the Mail is okay for factual articles but has tabloid leanings when dealing with celebrities). Exxolon (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ethnicity white british

michaels ethnicity is white irish surely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon543 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wife's name

Why is his wife referred-to under the name Cheryl St. Claire and also Cheryl Conklin? There was no other marriage. Valetude (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The transcription of GRO records on FreeBMD website shows that Michael K Parker and Cheryl C Cocklin marriage was registered in the June 1976 quarter at Harlow register office. Because there is no cited source for the name Cheryl St Claire I have changed her name in that section to Cheryl Cocklin. I don't believe that I can cite FreeBMD as a source, though, because it probably counts as original research. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

First wife?

Barrymore met his first wife Cheryl Cocklin in 1974...

Who is the second wife meant to be? Valetude (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

When I looked today, the article no longer refers to her as his first wife. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

General

I'm not making these changes since others might object. But:

(a) shouldn't the opening refer to his career collapsing - that he was a major star and then "suddenly" TV poison seems to be the most interesting thing about him, and (b) the 2017 judgement that he was due more than nominal damages, was overturned the next year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.229.110 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The section on the Death of Stuart Lubbock is too large

The section is too large. It needs its own article with only the details pertaining to Barrymore included in this one. The death is notable by all the press coverage on its investigation.

With an arrest made of someone who is not Barrymore, this needs a new article quickly. 81.153.37.24 (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I added info to that section today and then saw your note - I agree, it's practically taken over the article. There's clearly enough coverage to merit a separate article as an event, maybe "Death of Stuart Lubbock" initially. I'd be bold and try to split it, but I'd probably break something. Let's see if anyone else turns up with an opinion. --DSQ (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it probably needs a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Stuart Lubbock article and the Stuart Lubbock inquest article are currently just redirects, one could be expanded. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Stuart Lubbock inquest article originally had a great deal of information. It was cut dowxn to a redirect. We need to take care that any new article isn't similarly cut down. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I restored [Stuart Lubbock inquest, moved it into a new article, Death of Stuart Lubbock and linked to the Michael Barrymore page. Those who feel the section on the death is too long can clean up the old article and transfer material there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As it's from 14 years ago, it needs quite a lot of adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We also need to take care that the link to the Death of Stuart Lubbock article in the Michael Barrymore article here isn't taken out, check here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy?

On 1 March 2007, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), following a complaint lodged the previous December by Terry Lubbock, announced an investigation into aspects of the police inquiry into Lubbock's death after receiving complaints from the Lubbock family.

Were these separate complaints, or can the last seven words be omitted? – AndyFielding (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lifelong friend" claim

The article has Barrymore spent his early career working as a Redcoat at Butlins holiday camps and then in the West End theatre shows of London, where he met dancer and lifelong friend Cheryl Cocklin in 1974.

Surely if they met in 1974, when Barrymore was 22 years old and Cocklin 24 years old, the term lifelong friend is not at all accurate. So I have deleted it. CollyCarrot (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the term " lifelong friend" can generally be used to mean "friend for the rest of his/her life." So your deletion might seem a bit pedantic. But their divorce is described as "acrimonious" and "They subsequently had no contact." So that would seem to be a better reason for deleting it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)