Talk:Robert Hughes (actor)

message: Why is there nothing in the article about Robert Hughes.Can someone please inform me what's up with this?
I refer to the following news article primarily:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/more-hey-dad-scandal-emerges-as-further-accusations-levelled-at-actor-robert-hughes/story-e6frfmyi-1225845656318
Sarah Monahan AND Simone Buchanan united against Robert Hughes / Channel Nine
This is not just the online news articles now, but also a primary television news channel, yet no information on wikipedia? why is this? are there vested interests protecting the article? does he need to be found guilty in a court before this is updated on the article? what's going on here seriously? - Anon 26/3/12  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.247.81 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New alleged misconduct 

message: There should be no such allegation, placeholder or otherwise.  Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia.  This reference or otherwise should be submitted for deletion as part of this process, and the article in full should be immediately blanked in the interim while the allegations are heard.  Any reference, allegation, or otherwise, is not suitable to be added into Wikipedia.  Again, I quote Bright Line rule. --203.219.135.147 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's confirmed that he's the suspect though. But yes, innocent till proven guilty. It should still be discussed in the article in any case, and it could be expanded a bit with other stuff too eg his wife is agent Robyn Gardiner, how long have they been married, a bit more about his career etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.3.3 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: At this stage, there is nothing except untested allegations made in the popular press. Until such time as something more official results, including this topic is not appropriate and, if it isn't true, inclusion would be grossly defamatory. As an encyclopedia, we should bend over backwards to be fair to the subjects that we cover, even those accused of ghastly, terrible deeds. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not talking about here-say or such, we are talking about an allegation that has been broadcasted through a mass media (two prominent television current affairs programs) and a number of the printed media around Australia.  It would be the same as the sex scandal of Michael Jackson independent of the guilt or innocence.  An allegation has been made publicly and should be publicised.  Should the accusation be tested, the events can be rewritten that Robert Hughes has been accused and then convicted or exonerated.  The accusation has gained much attention in Australia therefore it should stay. -- throttler (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there should be some reference to the claims, but I also think "Sarah Monahan and Ben Oxenbould named Hughes as the perpetrator that molested and exposed himself to Monahan and others during the filming of the television series." needs tweaking and doesn't do enough to reinforce the fact that they are only allegations at this point. StuartH (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now seems a tad early to discuss this at all - it is less than 24 hours after he was named, he hasn't been charged, none of the claims have been tested, and things might change dramatically over a short period. I tend to agree with Mattinbgn here, in that we should be erring on the side of the subject, given that there are simply allegations at this point. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: In March 2010, Hey Dad...! actors Sarah Monahan and Ben Oxenbould alleged that Hughes molested and exposed himself to Monahan and others during the filming of the television series.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv/hey-dad-actor-robert-hughes-denies-sex-claims/story-e6frf9ho-1225844921221http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/6977542/general/hey-dad-abuser-named The allegations prompted a police investigation. Hughes has denied the accusations.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1030631/police-investigate-hey-dad-molestation-claim
The changes made by WWGB covered most of my concerns with the earlier wording. I'm personally still concerned that this is very early in the cycle, and I'd be much happier if there was more news - either a charge or a decision not to charge would help - but I guess that's something for consensus to decide. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: While the allegations were at the Woman's Day/ACA level, I agree that Wikipedia takeup was premature. Now that the police and reputable media have taken an interest, some mention is appropriate in Hughes's article. If the above is too explicit, a "placeholder" statement like "as of March 2010 police were investigating claims that Hughes was involved in inappropriate conduct during the filming of Hey Dad (+ref)" may be sufficient. WWGB (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have to agree with you.  Now that the police has taken interest in the accusation (by two separate people) this does deserve to be publicised as this is being published in nearly all Australian media especially on two prominent current affairs television show.  Like I stated previously this is not just some innuendo, it is stated by two separate people and just like the Michael Jackson sex scandal, it deserves to be publicised.  Should the evidence be tested, the events can be rewritten that Robert Hughes has been accused and then either acquitted or convicted. -- throttler (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a particular rush to include things as if this were a news site, but with coverage growing well beyond the initial Womans' Day/ACA claims the argument for inclusion is strengthening. A "wait and see" approach on the other hand raises the arbitrary question of exactly how long to wait. If reliable sources can be included for the claims and we continue to clearly demonstrate the fact that they are only allegations at this point, there's no harm in a brief mention. StuartH (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to mention it to some extent - the question is how and how much, not whether it should be ignored. The problem with Wikipedia is that these sorts of negative claims invariably gain extensive coverage, so these lot's of reliable soruces in which to base them, but the long-term significance is something that can't be decided within 24 hours of the allegations being raised. Thus I tend to prefer to err on the side of having minimal coverage until it is clear what is going to happen. In this case I'd much prefer WWGB's usggestion of a palceholder. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current length is about right - not too long, not too short. The placeholder is too short and gives no details of the conduct alleged or who is making the allegations - both of which are being widely reported. The media is giving much more coverage to this than a one-sentence placeholder can reflect. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged misconduct 

message: If the police haven't acknolwedged any claims  then it is safe to say there are no allegations, so the current evidence is just plain defamation if they don't want to refer it to police. Running a very big risk having it here according to BLP guidelines...  118.208.28.86 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Police haven't acknowledged any claims!

message: Given the disagreement and reverting on this page, I'm getting outside input from the BLP noticeboard. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: Now we have this fantastic claim to fame, Mr so and so has been accused of kiddie fiddling but no one has complained to them, if and when someone, anyone, reports anything to the boys in blue, they stand ready to investigate, we must we must insert this valuable content immediately. Off2riorob (talk)
On 25 March 2010, Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec, Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit in the New South Wales Police Force informed the PM program on ABC Radio that his Unit was "actively collating all information" concerning recent allegations against Hughes, and that police are "ready to take up any follow up investigations or inquiries that need to be done." He also stated that "we've not had contact from any of the victims. ... Police need to see detailed allegations by any victims to determine what crime or crimes have been committed." Police call for information about Hey Dad indecent assault allegations
:Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't edit war with you to keep such worthless rubbish out of a living persons wikipedian biography, you are responsible for it, you added it, so enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Worthless rubbish", eh? Ah, you've gotta love invective, the cheap-shot refuge of those with no credible alternative argument. WWGB (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition is your your responsibility not mine and yes, worthless rubbish is what I think of your addition. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is "my my responsibility" and I accept the consequences of my post. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are joking, the addition of such unsupported allegations, not even reported to the police allegations is damaging and demeaning to the living subject and damaging to the standards of this wikipedia as a whole. Close your eyes and imagine what the wikipedia would be like if your publish anything whatever was rolled out across the whole of the wikipedia, a worthless comic would be the result. In new south wales I am this is a massive press titillation, but your insistence in wanting to add such unfounded claims to wikipedia publish them to a worldwide audience, and you accept all responsibility, right. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please calm down.  The information you keep removing is about the media's reporting of the allegations.  This information is verifiable and a matter of public record.  The allegations at present are just that.  Whether they are "unfounded" is yet to be determined.  If you think that including information about media reports of the allegations is contrary to the BLP policies then please point to the relevant pieces of the policies that may support your thinking about this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The inserted rubbish is a copper says that nothing has been reported to him, that is a joke inclusion, the BLP policy that I removed for the time being untill there are charges or at least some major development was this...Lets just call it editorial judgment, and erring on the side of caution and not inserting sensational disputed content that may do damage to a living person and his family. ask yourself, why are some editors removing this content? Off2riorob (talk)
*Found on a toilet wall, Jenny said on the telly that harry had been fiddling with her when she was ten, as yet the coppers have only seen it on the telly no one has reported this heinous clime to them, meanwhile the man has been strung  up in a tree by a bunch of engaged kiddie protectors. for all the details published worldwide go to wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Your vandalism  is a lasting symbol of your desperation. Chill out ... WWGB (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually I have removed this rubbish from my watchlist, but as you mention my name, you mistake discussion for argument and you mistake comedy for vandalism, you also mistake the wikipedia comic and the view out of my window, enjoy yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try and keep it a bit more WP:CIVIL. Vandalism, sarcasm and abuse doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it. StuartH (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: possible new addition

message: There now seems to be an edit war over a police statement about the actor. The text as inserted does not say why the police are involved, so it doesn't really tell the reader much. I have noticed that a few editors are saying lines along the lines of "we can't put anything into WP until the police have become involved." Involvement of the police is not the yardstick by which information is included in WP. Having a credible external source is. I previously added a brief and rather plain description of where things stand. (I do not have a personal or strong interest in this case really. I had previously edited Hey Dad..! a few times - I never watched the show but I Australian and am interested in film and television.) I thought that adding a brief and neutral bit was better than the inviting absence, if you know what I mean? This is all a silly argument because none of the claims are ever going to go away. The subject already had a WP article, so it is inevitable that information about this news event will end up in this article. Also, apparently Kevin Rudd was asked for his comment on it as well. Format (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed (again) the info about police involvement as it is totally out of place there.  It does not have any introduction or context and as such is only a news item without any explanation for its presence.  Note that I am one of the editors who is pushing for inclusion of these allegations, so this is not just a POV push on my part.  Once consensus is reach (if it hasn't already) regarding the inclusion of these allegations, the removed paragraph can form part of that section.  Until then it is only stray text that needs context.--Dmol (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: This link says she is flying back or actually being flown back by one of her sponsors to AU to  make a statement to the police, I would say that if she does not make an official complaint she will be open to defamation claims, also you will see in the citation, how reporting of such claims before charges or investigation actually makes charging the person less likely. I have heard it mentioned that reports in wikipedia pre trial could have affected the chance for a fair trial and lawyers fight in such situations for  a dismissal due to there being no chance of jurors not being exposed to opinions about the offense, I don't think any editor here would wish to diminish the chances of a criminal conviction in such a case. I also notice that she has been paid for her comments as exclusive with womans magazine, so she has taken money for this exclusive and TV appearance, 55 thousand dollars announced payment to the accuser  Sarah Monahan so far. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Interesting that ACA say they have overwhelming evidence that they are completely nullifying by using to increase their ratings. Rather irresponsible of them. Of all people they should have experience with the effects of public media trials on actual convictions.  Ansell 23:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Police and Credible Sources

message: In a March 2010 interview with Woman's Day magazine, regular cast member Sarah Monahan alleged she had been molested on set during the production of the series.
In initial news reports she did not name the man. She told the magazine she was her family's breadwinner after the death of her father and she feared speaking up would cost her the job. Former co-star Julie McGregor said she was shocked by the allegations. "I had heard something but I had no idea the extent of the monstering ... and I feel sorry for her that there was no one that she could feel she could turn to."  Another cast member, Chris Truswell who played Nudge, said he was surprised by the allegations and feared people would think he was the alleged assailant. Truswell and McGregor both said they had no idea of the identity of Monahan's alleged assailant and said they never saw any inappropriate behaviour. 
Monahan was subsequently interviewed several times on the Nine Network series A Current Affair.
In an A Current Affair interview broadcast 22 March 2010 Monahan said she had complained but was discouraged from making a formal complaint. "They say that people don’t know but people knew. It was always ‘Keep it hushed’ because this is the most successful TV show on television. People don’t want to know that." 
In an interview aired on A Current Affair on 24 March 2010 Monahan alleged that it was the show's lead actor Robert Hughes who sexually molested her. She claimed it occured on several occasions during production on the series. Hughes, confronted by A Current Affair in Singapore where he now lives, strenuously denied the claims, saying the matter was in the hands of defamation lawyers. Cast member Ben Oxenbould claims he discovered Hughes touching a different female child actor who was a guest actor on a show, in a way that seemed inappropriate.
In an interview with A Current Affair, the executive producer of Hey Dad..!, Gary Reilly, denied knowledge of Monahan's allegations until they were published in Woman's Day. Reilly said he confronted a man accused of inappropriate treatment of a young cast member hired after Monahan had left the program.
Cast member Simone Buchanan claimed she had approached Reilly about the alleged assaults, but that he instructed her to keep quiet. After Buchanan had left the show she received a telephone call from Reilly warning her against speaking up about the allegations. "He was very, very angry with me. He said: 'If I hear you speaking about this again anywhere, I'll see to it you'll never work in this country again'," she said in an interview with A Current Affair. New South Wales Police have asked victims or people with information to come forward.
124.181.213.160 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I need references to make citations for this request. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: It should be pointed out that although Hughes was one-time a member of The Flying Circus, he left the group before 'Hayride' and 'La La' were recorded. The bass player in those YouTube clips is not Hughes. Perhaps that part of the article needs to be clarified to avoid confusion. PaulHammond2 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying Circus

message: since no consensus has yet been reached about how to include the current allegations about this living person, I think it's highly inappropriate to be backing up random info in this article with refs like this that I've removed: 




 I think it's a subtle way of trying to include it without reaching consensus. Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Caroline Overington is a Walkley Award winning investigative senior journalist with The Australian. She has asserted that there is an uneasy confluence between media allegations against Robyn Gardiner's husband and the proposed listing of Gardiner's company, possibly corporate sabotage. There is presently no mention in the Hughes article content of allegations against him. You are proposing a whole new slippery slope that no reference may be used because one part of it may refer to other matters not mentioned in the article. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First we need to reach consensus on including a matter that is already across and press and Australian media (and can be fully referenced using mainstream news sites.) Now we're not allowed to include references in Wikipedia?! Format (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say unreliable, just inappropriate. This person's wife's company's affairs are completely out of context without also adding info about the allegations. There is ample, well-referenced information about the current allegations on the Hey Dad...! page anyway. I'm not against it being included here, but keep in mind wikipedia is not news, so there's no need to rush to include it without consensus, keeping BLP guidelines in mind --Amaher (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think the abuse allegations should be included in the article, surely we can find reliable sources to other facts in his biography that don't have anything to do with the allegations. I don't think "Hey Dad child star flies home to talk to police" and "More at stake in molester affair than a reputation" are reasonable titles to have in the references if we're not getting involved in the allegations yet. StuartH (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs all about sex abuse claims 

message: Considering that there are a couple of BLP violations creeping on to the talkpage and a lot of content and discussion about these allegations I have removed the talkpage from the search engine crawlers and I have added an archive box, where anything excessive could be moved to, or in readiness for removing some discussions from the talk. Off2riorob (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is totally normal to remove such talkpages from the search engine crawler, this helps protect the subject and the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate source for "normal"? 220.253.74.56 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit  warring to keep this talkpage in the search engine crawl is unbelievable. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:STATUSQUO, "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." 220.253.74.56 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two 3RR breaches over this (on both sides)? Really... Take it easy with the reverts and obey [{WP:STATUSQUO]]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Thats five including me so I will add it now, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No index and archive box 

message: ... can be found here. Mattinbgn\talk 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting article ... 

message: From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
* Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
Format (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to point out what's irrelevant, or is this just general advice? -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that it just means we shouldn't discuss the case, but rather discuss the article, and how the case should be included / excluded. Parradudes (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Guidelines

message: It is like a month now since task force ruskin was formed, have there been any official complaints to the police and have there been any charges. I can't find any citations of any official complaints or charges anywhere? The content needs updating. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the police initiated an investigation, I expect there is no need for an "official complaint" since the matter will progress anyway. I guess it takes time to interview all the people involved (and, I suspect, police would wait for the media furore to cool down before releasing any further statement). WWGB (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree an update would be good and indeed necessary, but to say "nothing has happened" without a source saying that nothing has happened is original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen it done in quite a few such cases where there is a lot of press hoopla and accusatory claims and then everyone goes back to what they were doing, the damage having been done so to speak.Something like this I have seen..Mr harris called for an investigation and this is cited and then nothing happens and , after three months no investigation has been reported. We should look for any citations that give any kind of update to correct this, local editors maybe able to find something, I have been looking and not even found a single report since the hoopla. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The allegations started around 19 March and its now 23 April so that's just over one month - not "three months"! Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know, the comment I used is from another article. We will wait but please look for updates as it is not correct to leave the article like this. tOff2riorob (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some secondary comments not directly related to the story, but I haven't spotted anything significant, and NewsBank didn't show anything when last I checked. I'm not surprised, though - generally the police keep these investigations quiet, and there could be significant delays if they had to organise to travel to Singapore. Plus I'd expect them to take a lot of care. If they choose not to charge him there will be some coverage, and if they opt for charges there will be a lot. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the jurisdiction in which Off2riorob lives, but police in Australia are entitled to launch their own investigation and lay charges without an "official complaint". They have already indicated that the investigation will be a protracted process.  WWGB (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that cite is a month old, IMO there will be no charges at all, the police launched an investigation into the claims, that is exactlly what it says on the tin and reflects as much on the claimer as on the accused. We can wait and see, as I said please pay attention to udating this article as soon as possible as per BLP. Also looking at that citation provided by User WWGB it clearly says, Police said last week an investigation would not begin until a victim lodged a complaint with detectives. this is clear that unless a complaint was actually lodged then there would be no investigation, and we have no citation to support that an official complaint was lodged.  Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first six words of the newspaper article state "Police have launched a formal investigation". The sentence beginning "Police said last week ..." was an historical perspective. Anyway, all this crystal ball gazing is entirely unproductive. As Bilby points out, the police will release a statement when they are ready. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please..Our first priority under policy is to living people, the police is their issue , we must not wait an excessive time . please attempt to update these controversial allegations as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That is an interesting comment, but is simply a comment that she made a statement, not that she made a complaint. It is an interesting statement from her though, very revealing. Lets see what happens, it is interesting that she mentions that the police are aware that she received money for her story, as I have said previously, the fact that the police have taken a statement from her is perhaps as much a reflection of any charges that may be brought against her and any action that may or may not be brought against anyone else. People who report crimes do not first sell their story to celebrity magazines.Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: There are never going to be any charges of Hughes and he is never going to bve interviewed by the police. It is important that this is made clear in the article. In the UK we have this thing were people are innocent until they are proved guilty. This man has not been charged, will not be charged and as such is innocent. Off2riorob (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to agree that at this stage WP:OR should be ignored to allow the sentence you've put in, so I'm fine with the statement "no charges have yet been laid". But that doesn't mean they won't in future: there's no basis to speculate that "there are never going to be any charges of Hughes and he is never going to be interviewed by the police". --Mkativerata (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the fact that she first took money for the story from a magazine makes it an impossibility to ever charge him. I will swim to Australia with my hands tied behind my back if there are ever any charges. The whole issue was a press attack from start to finish Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No charges and no interview of Hughes 

message: It has been five months since the allegations first surfaced... does anyone know if there has been any new information about this case? Also, can anyone find links pointing to the supposition that (iirc) arouse not long after a current affair named Robert Hughes that all the key players were signed by a single rival talent agency to Robert Hughes wife? WookMuff (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Months 

message: Are there any reports of what task force Ruskin is doing? In the next few weeks it will be a year since the woman made the claims and this subject has not been interviewed and there have been no charges at all. I have been looking for updates and found nothing. Perhaps someone local can find something. I will stick my neck on the line here and imo there never will be any interview and there never will be any charges, if the task force has disbanded we need to make that clear in the article as soon as we find a report. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the  investigation is still going on. The A Current Affair tv show had a segment on the allegations on evening of 7 March 2011 (local date) See HERE. They went to the US to interview the 'girl' involved. FYI. - 220.101 \ 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry,about the TalkBack, didn't expect such a fast response! - 220.101 \ 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: • Concur with your comment though Off2riorob, we should wait for something concrete before making too much of it. You don't have to start swimming, yet! ;-} - 220.101 \ 14:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I am a lazy swimmer thanks for the update. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a brief news report in The Age today: . Format (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 'A Current Affair' had a bit more coverage 8 Mar. 11, regarding public response to yesterdays segment. - 220.101 \ 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  anniversary  - one year - no interview and no charge 

message: There are some new allegations from his niece, aired on A Current Affair, if someone wants to add them into the article:
http://www.news.com.au/national/niece-melinda-odonnell-claims-hey-day-star-robert-hughes-molested-her/story-e6frfkvr-1226020873434  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.143.42 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they have been added. They should not have been. Their adding and the continued retention of the previous claims demonstrate this encyclopedia is not seriously committed to treating fairly its living subjects. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Niece's allegations

message: See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Hughes (Australian actor). This article is manifestly unfair to someone who is basically no longer a public figure. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BLPN 

message: I heard that Hughes said he initially wanted to help the police and was prepared to return to Australia.
Now he's saying he's going to fight extradition.
Has anyone heard why he changed his mind about returning to Oz?
Montalban (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hughes: Coming, then staying 

message: We should probably change this to what I think was his last role in 2000. LGA talkedits 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one! You removed a reference that he was a voice actor in 2010, and then claim he has not worked since 2000. He may even take the lead role in the Christmas pageant at Silverwater Jail. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  whops my bad, you are right 2010. LGA talkedits 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years Active 

message: Should his nationality be changed to British? 
I'm honestly not sure if nationality is the same as citizenship. According to sources already linked in the article, he had dual Australian/British citizenship, then renounced his Australian citizenship. Does denouncing one's natural citizenship also renounce their "nationality"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights apparently says, "Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality". 
According to https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/hey-dad-actor-robert-hughes-granted-parole/101119740, he is about to be moved to immigration detention ahead of deportation to UK (giving additional credence to the fact he is no longer an Australian citizen). --159.196.170.89 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality