Ken Barlow's Jury Out

The Merry Prankster said:

I have no idea what makes someone think this. The CPS thought there was enough evidence to bring a prosecution, a jury will decide his guilt or innocence. What system would you prefer?

Click to expand...

carlzeiss said:

Not Guilty verdict announced

Click to expand...

edna krabappel said:

Christ on a bike, there are some painful attitudes on here.

To whoever suggested a time limit for victims to come forward: what if your daughter (or son) came up to you aged 30 and told you your next door neighbour had repeatedly sexually abused them when they were ten? Would you be happy to tell them to forget it? What if your next door neighbour had been a celebrity- would you tell them to forget about it because the perpetrator was famous? I think not.

To suggest that, because an accused is found not guilty, that the aggrieved party must be making it up, is akin to saying that if a player who goes down in the penalty box didn't dive, then it must be a penalty. It's simply not true.

Sometimes (quite a lot, unfortunately, when it comes to sexual offences, due to the nature of the offence) juries don't feel they have enough to convict someone, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. I would bet my life savings on one thing here, chaps: there are far, FAR more unconvicted abusers, rapists and assorted other offenders out there walking around than there innocent men who've been falsely accused.

If one random woman comes up to the police and says she was attacked by Celebrity X, the CPS won't prosecute without other evidence. If several, completely unconnected, women contact them, and give remarkably similar accounts, independently of each other, wouldn't that tend to suggest that there may be some truth in it? That's how these cases are coming to court.

There's a lot of people on here passing judgement with seemingly very little knowledge of the justice system, or, indeed, the way in which sexual abuse affects victims for many years afterwards. I've met plenty, and I can tell you it's frequently a traumatic experience for them even to come forward and speak about it, let alone contemplate standing in a court and having a celebrity's expensive barrister ask them "Is it not true you were flattered by my client's attentions [aged thirteen]?".

Jeez.

Click to expand...

Psychobilly freakout said:

Now his smug face and vile thoughts on women will be all over tv for a few days and in the weekend papers. Should boost his retirement fund.

Guilty or Not there is something about the man I dislike.

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

I've always felt that people shouldn't be named until they're proven guilty, but someone pointed out to me that victims are often afraid to come forward, and naming someone gives other victims the impetus to come forward. It's a fair point.

To be proven to have made it up, presumably they'd have to be tried. I don't like the idea of taking rape victims to court.

Click to expand...

Nibble said:

Even though he's not guilty I will always think of Bill Roach as The Coronation Street Rapist.

Click to expand...

The Rivet said:

Why? because of press headlines? Your stance is indicative of all those that are 'led' by media speculation. The man was found not guilty by society and the judiciary and you actually publish a post that could be legally questioned. Jeez.

Click to expand...

Nibble said:

Could be legally questioned? Hopefuly not by you as your knowledge of legality seems pretty piss poor. Like I say, I like to think of him as The Coronation Street Rapist. I will always have that and no-one can take that away from me.

Click to expand...

The Rivet said:

My legal knowledge piss poor huh? Profanity in a disagreement too, your surpassing yourself. Figures!

Click to expand...

edna krabappel said:

Christ on a bike, there are some painful attitudes on here.

To whoever suggested a time limit for victims to come forward: what if your daughter (or son) came up to you aged 30 and told you your next door neighbour had repeatedly sexually abused them when they were ten? Would you be happy to tell them to forget it? What if your next door neighbour had been a celebrity- would you tell them to forget about it because the perpetrator was famous? I think not.

To suggest that, because an accused is found not guilty, that the aggrieved party must be making it up, is akin to saying that if a player who goes down in the penalty box didn't dive, then it must be a penalty. It's simply not true.

Sometimes (quite a lot, unfortunately, when it comes to sexual offences, due to the nature of the offence) juries don't feel they have enough to convict someone, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. I would bet my life savings on one thing here, chaps: there are far, FAR more unconvicted abusers, rapists and assorted other offenders out there walking around than there innocent men who've been falsely accused.

If one random woman comes up to the police and says she was attacked by Celebrity X, the CPS won't prosecute without other evidence. If several, completely unconnected, women contact them, and give remarkably similar accounts, independently of each other, wouldn't that tend to suggest that there may be some truth in it? That's how these cases are coming to court.

There's a lot of people on here passing judgement with seemingly very little knowledge of the justice system, or, indeed, the way in which sexual abuse affects victims for many years afterwards. I've met plenty, and I can tell you it's frequently a traumatic experience for them even to come forward and speak about it, let alone contemplate standing in a court and having a celebrity's expensive barrister ask them "Is it not true you were flattered by my client's attentions [aged thirteen]?".

Jeez.

Click to expand...

Nibble said:

Even though he's not guilty I will always think of Bill Roach as The Coronation Street Rapist.

Click to expand...

Nibble said:

He sounds like a right odd 'un. According to the BBC he was a Druid, believes natural disasters are to cleanse the planet, that sex abuse victims are paying the price for what they did in previous lives, believes in Homeopathy and threw his muck up Pat Phoenix. A rum one indeed.

Click to expand...

vegster said:

Well, that's that then. There were allegations, they were investigated and a case was built and it was taken to court. Bill Roache had his time in court and the jury found him not guilty on all charges. As he said himself there are no real winners that come out of this. He has had his name dragged through the mud, the witnesses have had to give up some shaky evidence which has been disproved in court much to their distress. However, justice seems to have been done and we can all move on.

Click to expand...